PDA

View Full Version : Filter/plugin/software that transforms pictures to artwork?


Digital Portraits
12-18-2005, 05:42 PM
I found these amazing software/plugins/filters that are really amazing, it was simply very beautiful.. they turn your photos into artwork. Do you happen to know any others like these? And also, do any of you have these, would you recommend them?



http://www.fo2pix.com/index.php (http://www.fo2pix.com/index.php)

Art Master Pro


http://www.photoshoproadmap.com/Pho...s/Gertrudis-Pro (http://www.photoshoproadmap.com/Photoshop-downloads/info/Brushes/Gertrudis-Pro)

Gertrudis Pro

http://www.redfieldplugins.com/filterSketchMaster.htm (http://www.redfieldplugins.com/filterSketchMaster.htm)

Sketch Master by RedFielf Plugins

digistyle
12-18-2005, 09:35 PM
None of the sample works produced by these products seemed to be artwork to me. They just look like filtered/smudged images. With the rise of digital photography, a lot of graphics companies are trying to expand their user base from the traditional graphics professional niche market into the casual user space. I've yet to see one of these "instant masterpiece" filters produce anything close to original looking artwork.

For the record, I have no problem with filters or filtered work, as long as it's not represented as something other than what it is. The rub is the confusion that it causes with John Q. Public. It makes good ol' John assume that all digital work is just filtered photographs, which makes it hard to get other types of digital art (and artists) taken seriously. Which means digital artwork doesn't usually command the prices that it should.

Just my two cents.

digistyle

Digital Portraits
12-18-2005, 11:21 PM
None of the sample works produced by these products seemed to be artwork to me. They just look like filtered/smudged images. With the rise of digital photography, a lot of graphics companies are trying to expand their user base from the traditional graphics professional niche market into the casual user space. I've yet to see one of these "instant masterpiece" filters produce anything close to original looking artwork.

For the record, I have no problem with filters or filtered work, as long as it's not represented as something other than what it is. The rub is the confusion that it causes with John Q. Public. It makes good ol' John assume that all digital work is just filtered photographs, which makes it hard to get other types of digital art (and artists) taken seriously. Which means digital artwork doesn't usually command the prices that it should.

Just my two cents.

digistyle
I know, I never disagreed, that's why I'm just looking for filters, I never said those were real art lol. They look beautiful, that is all :) nothing less, nothing more

Chiers
12-18-2005, 11:52 PM
None of the sample works produced by these products seemed to be artwork to me. They just look like filtered/smudged images. With the rise of digital photography, a lot of graphics companies are trying to expand their user base from the traditional graphics professional niche market into the casual user space. I've yet to see one of these "instant masterpiece" filters produce anything close to original looking artwork.

For the record, I have no problem with filters or filtered work, as long as it's not represented as something other than what it is. The rub is the confusion that it causes with John Q. Public. It makes good ol' John assume that all digital work is just filtered photographs, which makes it hard to get other types of digital art (and artists) taken seriously. Which means digital artwork doesn't usually command the prices that it should.

Just my two cents.



digistyle

Well said Digi!

Digital Portraits
12-18-2005, 11:58 PM
Well said Digi!
agreed

Digital Portraits
12-18-2005, 11:59 PM
But to stay on topic, does anyone know or have experience with these manipulation softwares? I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me.

Chiers
12-19-2005, 12:42 AM
You might want to ask in the photography forum too.

Digital Portraits
12-19-2005, 12:48 AM
Thank you Chiers, good idea :clap:

Jet
12-19-2005, 04:03 AM
Hi DP!
Stay away from the "art master" software;
***buying this crappy program is a HUGE waste of money ...:confused:
****I wouldn't use it ,even if it it was free..:mad:

----------

On the other hand , they have BuzzPro 3 filters (http://www.fo2pix.com/products/proproducts_more.php?id=279_0_16_0_C) that is a really good plug-in for your exixting graphics software..:)

----------------

Using filters and presenting the first-generation filtered image is an insult to intelligence as anyone can do that at the push of a button.

Using a cloned image, filtered through a "brush", and claiming as being "painted" or done "freehand" is not an accurate statement, either; As anyone can do very similar results with the same tools.

On the other hand, combining wisely the use of the resources available for making digital art (layers, filters, 'brushes', cloning, sampling, etc.) is that will make the difference.

Many of the proficient digital artists use some type of trick to make their works shine above the rest; just don't expect those artists to ever reveal their secrets, as that's what makes their own style.

We will have to mix our own formula , so our works have our own special 'fingerprint' embedded in them...

Good Luck...
Regards
:cool:

Digital Portraits
12-19-2005, 05:20 AM
Hi DP!
Stay away from the "art master" software;
***buying this crappy program is a HUGE waste of money ...:confused:
****I wouldn't use it ,even if it it was free..:mad:

----------

On the other hand , they have BuzzPro 3 filters (http://www.fo2pix.com/products/proproducts_more.php?id=279_0_16_0_C) that is a really good plug-in for your exixting graphics software..:)

----------------

Using filters and presenting the first-generation filtered image is an insult to intelligence as anyone can do that at the push of a button.

Using a cloned image, filtered through a "brush", and claiming as being "painted" or done "freehand" is not an accurate statement, either; As anyone can do very similar results with the same tools.

On the other hand, combining wisely the use of the resources available for making digital art (layers, filters, 'brushes', cloning, sampling, etc.) is that will make the difference.

Many of the proficient digital artists use some type of trick to make their works shine above the rest; just don't expect those artists to ever reveal their secrets, as that's what makes their own style.

We will have to mix our own formula , so our works have our own special 'fingerprint' embedded in them...

Good Luck...
Regards
:cool:
thank you for the heads up Jet :) Don't worry, I wasn't intending to use these and place them as my own work if that what was implied by this hehe. Because anyone can see if it's a filter or not silly :) I just like to see what else is out there because the increase in technology is fascinating and they turn out beautiful, that is all :)

Jet
12-19-2005, 07:06 AM
thank you for the heads up Jet :) Don't worry, I wasn't intending to use these and place them as my own work if that what was implied by this hehe. Because anyone can see if it's a filter or not silly :) I just like to see what else is out there because the increase in technology is fascinating and they turn out beautiful, that is all :)

Hi DP !!
Please, feel at ease about my comments; you have been very straightforward and honest in your approaches and in acknowledging your mistakes, and that speaks highly of you...

I was referring to the pseudo professionals trying to sell their raw-filtered pieces as digital art...
..... Please Take a peek here (http://www.lindadoll.com/_wsn/page6.html)
I believe we can do much better filtered pieces than those! Don't you think so?...LOL....

Regards
:cool:

Smokin
12-19-2005, 07:38 AM
AWWW, I'm not so sure thats fair. I took a look at that sight Jet and some some impressive water colors there that look very professional. Dispite the fact that she calls these digi paintings, she is very upfront about what she does, clearly statng she takes a photo (her own photography work, an art in itself) and manipulates that. I find her straight foward and legit IMO. No deception there whats so ever. Its not like she is trying to pretend that she started from scratch or anything.

Einion
12-19-2005, 12:58 PM
I believe we can do much better filtered pieces than those! Don't you think so?Yep!

The debate about what is or is not art is long in the tooth at this stage, and will never die, but one thing we can get some agreement on is that simple filtering of an image doesn't create good art.

I do have to add that using one's own photographs is a very good start.

Einion

Digital Portraits
12-19-2005, 01:19 PM
Hi DP !!
Please, feel at ease about my comments; you have been very straightforward and honest in your approaches and in acknowledging your mistakes, and that speaks highly of you...

I was referring to the pseudo professionals trying to sell their raw-filtered pieces as digital art...
..... Please Take a peek here (http://www.lindadoll.com/_wsn/page6.html)
I believe we can do much better filtered pieces than those! Don't you think so?...LOL....

Regards
:cool:
Wow!

now THAT'S deception! that makes me upset =/

Chiers
12-19-2005, 02:41 PM
While I disagree with her using the term "painting", she certainly isn't being deceptive about her process. She explains within the first sentence or two that she is manipulating a photo. Not deceptive at all. Deception comes in when someone misrepresents the process. Misusing the term is only deceptive when combined with intent to deceive regarding the process.

It IS digital ART.

Smokin
12-19-2005, 08:13 PM
n/m fer now

nafa
12-19-2005, 09:25 PM
I second Smokin's sentiment. Shes perfectly open about her process and the results are lovely.

Jet
12-19-2005, 11:08 PM
To achieve that result, you can do it in just one step using Adobe PhotoShop elements or regular PS versions 5.5-9(CS):
Click on menu bar >Filters >Artistic >Cutout - play with settings to taste ..and..voilá (...instant art!! ..:)

Here's one of my first works as a beginner (a few years back):
1-My original digital photo/2- treated with the cutout filter (5 mins)/ 3-a filtered + freehand work (5 hours).

Just an example.....:cool:

Elainepsq
12-19-2005, 11:35 PM
May I add another dimension of thought to this, if an "artist" has set up an action and uses the same combination of filters every time, it is not art.
If they carefully consider with an artistic vision what filter to use next, and combine several layers at different opacities and do something different with each piece, depending on their artistic interpretation, it is art. IMHO.

I remember getting off the elevator in the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art in NYC in the 70's and I thought the floor was closed for renovations. There were drop cloths and piles of paint cans just as you got off the elevator. It was a sculpture show. But I still put my paint cans away after painting my living room a few weeks ago.;)

Jin
12-20-2005, 11:04 AM
Jet,

I'm not sure you intended to say the artist who's site is linked in your post #11 is not a professional artist, but regarding use of the words "pseudo professional", among other definitions of the word "professional" are:

• One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation.

• Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career.

Considering this artist charges for her painted digital manipulations, and presumably sells them, she qualifies as a professional artist.

She also offers classes for which I assume she charges a fee so that would make her a professional teacher or instructor.

In neither context does the word "pseudo" apply as pseudo means:

• False or counterfeit; fake

While I'm not in love with her work, in fact find it rather mundane, I don't find it offensive, lacking in artist's skill, or particularly filtered looking. It just looks like photos that have been slightly altered in one way or another and to one degree or another. The images are too small to see brush work but I'll take the artist's word for it that she does some painting before the images are completed.

While some artists here at WetCanvas! do very nice, subtle, work with filters, very often they're (IMHO) over-used and the filter work is quite evident, distracting, and that detracts from what could otherwise be a nice image. So, no. I don't think we all can do better work than the artist mentioned above.

If no one knew her or had seen her site and she posted one of her images here in the Digital Art forum, explaining in brief her process, my bet is that she'd get a lot of positive feedback. Surely others who do work of similar style and quality receive positive feedback here.

In other words, I agree with Smokin and Sherry. This artist has not done anything deceptive or presented her work falsely. If she chooses to refer to it as digital painting, that's her business. It is digital and it does including painting so I can understand her choice of description.

Describiing digital art is something that has challenged us for years and will probably continue to challenge us for years more... maybe until everyone gets so tired of worrying about it we just quit the fretting and debating and spend our time improving our own skills and producing art.

That sounds a lot more fun to me! ;)