PDA

View Full Version : Tips for creating Photo-realistic digital art


Sethelic
12-05-2006, 11:29 PM
Hi,

1. I'm interested in Realism, Photo-realism and was wondering what are some points/tools/methods you guys take note of when trying to make a painting realistic? i need the image to be printed out so it will be viewed close-up too, how can i make my drawings tighter?

2. Which brush / method you guys use to create the smoothest gradations of values change eg. like smearing chalk powder with a cotton pad

3. Is traditional Oil painting/ Airbrushing more suited for painting photo-realistic pictures?

4. I tried using the digital aribrush in painter & soft edged brush in photoshop, i set the pressure sensitivity to change with either the value or opacity respectively but i didn't manage to get a smooth & controlled gradation easily still. i used the smudge tool too but i would like more precise tonal control. i'm using intuo3 so the pressure sensitivity should be there. any idea how to do it?
:)

I use both illustrator, photoshop & painter, so an answer pertaining to any of these software would be fine.

Smokin
12-05-2006, 11:52 PM
There are alot of techniques out there to get familiar with for photo real paintings. Ive seens some amazing things done with advanced photoshop filtering techniques where lil drawing was involved, but alot of understanding and experience was applied. I believe "Lynda.com (advanced photoshop techniques" had a good dvd for that.
For painting with corel, those techniques are as varied as the ones traditional artist find. Personally I like to push values with the digital water brush and pencil, especially with b/w stuff. I like to use the simmple blender and again digital watercolor to tint colors for a more realistic look.

For a smooth transition, I think it would be helpful to post what you arnt happy with. I personally jump around from one technique to the next. One way I like to use is to paint on the values with a bold marker or flat brush like tool. The use a blender to blend the area between the two tones. Then on top of that use an airbrush or soft charcol (soft brush) set to low opacity, to blend even further.
You can then push values even furth with a soft edged Dodge and burn tool set to low opacity and blend all over again.

Im noticing im rambling now. Anyway, for the most control, I sugest using a pen to map the tones, then blend.....like in this tut. http://www.3dluvr.com/content/article/49

If you havnt tried the just add water tool in Painter (a blender) do so.

Einion
12-06-2006, 10:53 AM
1. I'm interested in Realism, Photo-realism and was wondering what are some points/tools/methods you guys take note of when trying to make a painting realistic?
That's a difficult thing to answer in any really helpful way but it's mainly about accurate drawing and getting colour accurate/believable. If you get those two right then you're 98% of the way there and you can get away with a lot in terms of smoothness and less-than-perfect transitions etc.

2. Which brush / method you guys use to create the smoothest gradations of values change eg. like smearing chalk powder with a cotton pad
There are literally going to be a dozen answers to this. Just in Photoshop you can brush or airbrush with a large brush set at maximum softness, at a low opacity; you can use the gradient tool; you can make a selection, feather it and then fill it; you can use one or more of the Blur filters; you can Smudge. Or you can use some combination of the above (in any order!)

3. Is traditional Oil painting/ Airbrushing more suited for painting photo-realistic pictures?
No question: no. In a number of important ways one can do this more easily by digital means, and it takes less time to learn how to do it, as well as to execute the artwork. But on the other hand at the end of the day a painter has an actual painting to show for their effort, which a lot of people value more highly than a printout of a digital file.

About photo-real work though, there can be a lot of scale effects involved in how they look in case you don't realise. In many Photorealist paintings (I think most in fact) the amazing photo-like quality isn't evident when you're standing at arm's length or closer, from across the room though you can usually see it. I think it's important to mention, as more than one person has observed, there's usually no way you'd mistake a photo-real painting for an actual photographic print when seen in the flesh.

Another point to always bear in mind with regard to our idea of Photorealism: the reproductions in books might be 10 or 20 times smaller than the original and that reduction helps a lot in how photo-like the thing is. Even fairly stylised work can look much more realistic when reproduced at a small size.

4. I tried using the digital aribrush in painter & soft edged brush in photoshop, i set the pressure sensitivity to change with either the value or opacity respectively but i didn't manage to get a smooth & controlled gradation easily still. i used the smudge tool too but i would like more precise tonal control. i'm using intuo3 so the pressure sensitivity should be there. any idea how to do it?
:)
Other than the usual advice to practice I will say you may not need to be as smooth as you'd think. If you look at the digital file of many photos closely there's a lot of small variation in things that look like smooth transitions.

I use both illustrator, photoshop & painter, so an answer pertaining to any of these software would be fine.
Although you can do photo-real work in Illustrator personally I wouldn't bother given the time and effort involved. As far as I know you'd have to work from a photo source anyway and if that is the case then in about a tenth of the time you could get something like the same result, one that looks better when viewed up close too IMO.

Einion

Sethelic
12-07-2006, 09:21 PM
Thanks for the tips, i will try them out.

I noticed some advanced 3D software can really produce very realistic looking 3d modelling (near photo-realistic), i was wondering how can i achieve that in 2d painting.

My logic is simple: take any photo and convert it to black & white, then you realized its values itself is enough to give form, so i though a detailed hand & eye could produce the same smooth transition in values, so a more realistic paitning would be possible.

Einion
12-08-2006, 06:21 AM
Thanks for the tips, i will try them out.
Welcome, glad to try to help. True Photorealism is a big hurdle in terms of the skill it takes so I honestly don't know how much help it'll be.

I noticed some advanced 3D software can really produce very realistic looking 3d modelling (near photo-realistic)...
We've just past the point where it's no longer near to photorealistic :)

I'm trying to remember where I saw some renders with added elements in Photoshop the other day that were mindblowing, if I find the link I'll post it here. Until then take a look at these:

http://features.cgsociety.org/stories/2006_11/sanitra/im06.jpg
http://features.cgsociety.org/stories/2006_11/sanitra/im09.jpg

Click for larger image on these:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40752520/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/7142053/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/26128367/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36023421/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/34414029/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/28877131/

...i was wondering how can i achieve that in 2d painting.
I think it's possible, but with great difficulty. Bear in mind there are lots of professional artists who aim for this and don't quite clear the bar.

My logic is simple: take any photo and convert it to black & white, then you realized its values itself is enough to give form, so i though a detailed hand & eye could produce the same smooth transition in values, so a more realistic paitning would be possible.
Find some UHQ (ultra-high quality) celeb pics on one of the celebrity fansites, open them in Photoshop, convert to L*a*b* mode and take a look at the L channel. You'll generally find it's not quite as smooth as you might be thinking. In fact too smooth is usually a dead giveaway that something's not a photo! For this reason a lot of digital artists over the years have independently come up with various routines to add noise back into their work.

Einion

DSPIT
12-08-2006, 06:18 PM
Both smokin and Einion are giving you good advice I would say. I have not been to see if smokin has a site, check Einion's.

I have even seen vector art that was photorealistic in an unbelievable way, actually i think Einion led me there

I hang around a lot at conceptart.org a lot as well as here. and there are a ton of professionals in there that can get so realistic, its scarry. the biggest repetitive thing I hear is layering. Layer upon layer. Using as large as brushes as you can, working down. I have had some success with this, but nothing like your talking about, or at least what I think you mean.

One thing to watch out for with things like the poser (3d) program, you can still tell. sometimes, its almost easier to tell. so dont think your going to grab a top notch program like that and with minimal work, it is going to churn out photorealistic stuff for you.

I dont mean to sound harsh, but it sound to me, like you are almost hoping to find some instant or near instant solution using computers, to create a photo realistic print. and if not, on to airbrushing, oils etc. the fact is, it almost doesnt matter, you will have to learn the tools, do drawings well, composite, and practice........a lot, to get that result. Easier for some than others for sure, but none the less, it aint majik.


2cents,,,,,. D.

Sethelic
12-09-2006, 06:52 AM
I'm trying to remember where I saw some renders with added elements in Photoshop the other day that were mindblowing, if I find the link I'll post it here. Until then take a look at these:


Thanks for the effort by sharing the links, they look very nice! but it seems they have been enchanced by some 3d software too.


Find some UHQ (ultra-high quality) celeb pics on one of the celebrity fansites, open them in Photoshop, convert to L*a*b* mode and take a look at the L channel. You'll generally find it's not quite as smooth as you might be thinking.


did you mean the large jump in numerical figures on the L channel rather a smooth sequential increase/decrease in the number by sampling using an eyedropper tool? i'm not very familar with the LAB model


I hang around a lot at conceptart.org a lot as well as here. and there are a ton of professionals in there that can get so realistic, its scarry. the biggest repetitive thing I hear is layering. Layer upon layer. Using as large as brushes as you can, working down. I have had some success with this, but nothing like your talking about, or at least what I think you mean.


thanks for all your advice as well. hmmm. working down, do you mean playing mainly with opacity? also, are u referring to painting from light to dark , or dark to light? do you still have those links to the posts?


I dont mean to sound harsh, but it sound to me, like you are almost hoping to find some instant or near instant solution using computers, to create a photo realistic print. and if not, on to airbrushing, oils etc. the fact is, it almost doesnt matter, you will have to learn the tools, do drawings well, composite, and practice........a lot, to get that result. Easier for some than others for sure, but none the less, it aint majik.


I wasn't trying to find a shortcut but i was just trying to explore the limitations of photorealistic rendering ability of the various mediums/software because i hope to get into the matte painting industry eventually.
I understand mastery of powerful mediums like oil, airbrushing(digitally) would allow me to produce the work i want. but theres time required in learning the tool and for a pro career, theres also the deadline aspect in producing pieces.

at current, i'm trying to decide on which digital medium to spend most my time honing my skills on as theres always only so little time and so much to learn.

----

Also, i noticed the HSB slider: the Saturation & Brightness slider is in %percentage. does anyone of you know how do they work it out as in the calculation behind the % . i.e. say 50% brightness is 50% of what number? also does it share any relationship with any tonal scale? e.g. Munsell tonal scale

I'm supposing the Brightness slider in HSB is similar to the Grayscale slider in Photoshop

Einion
12-12-2006, 10:39 AM
did you mean the large jump in numerical figures on the L channel rather a smooth sequential increase/decrease in the number by sampling using an eyedropper tool? i'm not very familar with the LAB model
No, just look at it - it'll often not be as smooth (featureless) as you might expect, even for the skin of a young woman, or silk, or an out-of-focus wall behind the subject.

Einion

Smokin
12-13-2006, 11:50 AM
Yeah Like E said. If you get things too smooth, you get the "pocelain doll" effect. its more about getting your values in the right spots.