New portrait technique

tmlphoto

I process this studio shot using the Buzz simplifier filter and then ran it through the PS watercolor filter. I'm looking for something that will print up well on canvas and have a painterly feel to it. I have cropped this as little as it is difficult to appreciate the effect on a small image.


Here is a tighter crop to bette show the effect.


Here is the original if anyone is interested.

dragon300zx

Thomas I have been starting to use these filters too but yours turned out really well. There is a big demand for that kinda thing by where I live at least. It's the modern version of painted portraits and alot of parents are loving it to get one or two special photos like that along with the normal ones. I think it looks good.

Poseidon

I have mixed feelings on this one... It is cool, but maybe not the right subject? I see this treatment for an older person... MAYBE, or maybe I am just crazy.

Thiago Sigrist

Hi Thomas!
That's a very cool processing technique for portraits and all.
I'm not really a big fan of those kinds of filters but you got really nice results here.

Thanks so much for sharing!
Take care!

-- thiago

gtc

its just my opinion
hi thomas

please dont take this the wrong way but I just have to speak out on this one.

i am not keen on that effect-i don't think it looks like a painting and it never will,even if you use paper with lots of bleed etc-it will always look like a photoshop effect,and a not very good one at that.

maybe my reaction to that effect is because i know a few painters and like the difference between painting and photography.i also know how hard a life they have chosen,in a financial sense,and would be very dismayed if somehow photoshop started to compete against them

that being said I dont mind photorealism as a painting technique but sometimes wonder whether it just provides a painter with an opportunity to show what a
steady a hand they have and their technical skill etc because you would get a better result by using a camera.

I think that you would also get a better painting like effect by painting or employing a poor starving painter to do it for you.

sorry for being a downer on this but this effect makes me think yerk-your son is a good looking kid and I think he would be better represented by a normal photo or a proper painted portrait rather than an awful compromise.

please dont accuse me of holding back...

Greg

coldclimb

I'm with gtc. The effect is done well, but it won't look like a painting, sadly.

tmlphoto

dragon300zx wrote:

Thomas I have been starting to use these filters too but yours turned out really well. There is a big demand for that kinda thing by where I live at least. It's the modern version of painted portraits and alot of parents are loving it to get one or two special photos like that along with the normal ones. I think it looks good.

Thanks. I don't think anyone in my town is doing this type of thing, but photogs have been doing canvas prints and "Brush stroke" over painting forever. I do think that there is a market for these types of portraits. Not everyone is willing to shell out the thousands of dollars it cost to get a painted portrait done.

On the technical side, I have found that using the simplifier filter first and then the watercolor filter works best.

Thansk for looking.

tmlphoto

Poseidon wrote:

I have mixed feelings on this one... It is cool, but maybe not the right subject? I see this treatment for an older person... MAYBE, or maybe I am just crazy.

Thanks for the honest feedback. Here is another similar type effect, only more pronounced. Different subject for sure...Better?

patch29

Corel Painter does a nice job in the right hands, but it is a skill to get it right. I picked up a copy when I bought a Wacom tablet a couple years ago.

HS Photo in Atlanta has staff artists that do this you could contact them to see a sample and get pricing. I am sure a lot of other labs do this too.

tmlphoto

gtc wrote:

hi thomas

please dont take this the wrong way but I just have to speak out on this one.

i am not keen on that effect-i don't think it looks like a painting and it never will,even if you use paper with lots of bleed etc-it will always look like a photoshop effect,and a not very good one at that.

maybe my reaction to that effect is because i know a few painters and like the difference between painting and photography.i also know how hard a life they have chosen,in a financial sense,and would be very dismayed if somehow photoshop started to compete against them

that being said I dont mind photorealism as a painting technique but sometimes wonder whether it just provides a painter with an opportunity to show what a
steady a hand they have and their technical skill etc because you would get a better result by using a camera.

I think that you would also get a better painting like effect by painting or employing a poor starving painter to do it for you.

sorry for being a downer on this but this effect makes me think yerk-your son is a good looking kid and I think he would be better represented by a normal photo or a proper painted portrait rather than an awful compromise.

please dont accuse me of holding back...

Greg

Thanks for your honest opinion. By painterly effect I didn't mean to imply that it could actually pass as a painting or even that I was trying to make it really look like a painting. I'm sorry you don't like the effect. I have commissioned oil paintings of my children and also have many photographs, just looking for another way to express myself I quess.

I can't draw a straight line so I certainly can't really do photo illustration. It sounds like you have more of an issue with the process rather than the end result. I'm surely no threat to any real artist.

Interestingly, the last art contest I entered had two catagories: 2-D and 3-D. The photographs and paintings were judged together. There were also photoillustrations entered into the same catagory. One of my "straight" photos was well recieved and many people questioned whether or not it was a photograph or not. I don't think the non-photographers out there really care that much how the image was created, they just judge the image on its merits. I have also seen photographers selling slightly filtered photos at artists guild shops with both painters and photogs working together.

I think many people are more interested in buying photos that don't really look like photos, but don't really look like paintinings either. I don't see it as an either or issue. Thanks again for your honest opinion.

tmlphoto

patch29 wrote:

Corel Painter does a nice job in the right hands, but it is a skill to get it right. I picked up a copy when I bought a Wacom tablet a couple years ago.

HS Photo in Atlanta has staff artists that do this you could contact them to see a sample and get pricing. I am sure a lot of other labs do this too.

Thanks for the links Patch. I have been playing around with different filters trying to figure out how to work an image. What do you think of these two results. Way off? or headed in the right direction. Do you have any specific comments about the need for more detail, less detail etc. A Wacom is on my wish list, but as I have said before I can't really draw a straight line or a curved line on purpose for that matter. Thanks for looking.

patch29

Personally I would like a smoother more watercolor style effect. I have not played with painter in a long time, don't even have it installed at the moment.

It can give a very nice effect, then put it on canvas, add the brush stroke texture and you have a very different option to offer your clients. It can also be done for less than a commissioned painting.

I made one image that I liked with the effect, but I would need to find it.

I don't think you are far off, perhaps a little gaussian blur to soften your effect, but keep the eyes and important points a little sharper. The shirt would need some work to make it look softer, the collar probably bothers me the most.

There is a demo of painter from that link, you could try it out and see if it works better for you. Photovisionvideo sells a very good DVD tutorial for Painter,
here. They often have a seminar in Atlanta, maybe in the Spring, showing their products, but they seem to be done for the year. Here is the site with trade show schedules.

patch29

If you are interested contact HS to see if they will make sure they have samples and you can visit them in person, not sure it that is easier than coming to Atlanta.

August 21-22 Florida Professional Photographers Assoc. Convention (Orlando, FL)

patch29

Here is their artists website. Her work is excellent.

Poseidon

tmlphoto wrote:

Thanks for the honest feedback. Here is another similar type effect, only more pronounced. Different subject for sure...Better?

Nope that one just looks like noise. I think you are on the right path with people, just not young people? I know that sounds strange, but try one of G-Ma or G-Pa and maybe add some desaturation? I'll bet that will work!

BigAl

I use this kind of effect often when I make birthday cards for people. The effect works well when you print on textured paper (especially on those papers which can't handle photo quality printing). Other useful filters are Paint Engine, Xero and Amphisoft (freeware plugins). I also use Virtual Painter.

I'm not sure if you have looked at other sites, but Wetcanvas, Innographx and RetouchPro all have discussion forums on this type of art.

regards
alan

tmlphoto

BigAl wrote:

I use this kind of effect often when I make birthday cards for people. The effect works well when you print on textured paper (especially on those papers which can't handle photo quality printing). Other useful filters are Paint Engine, Xero and Amphisoft (freeware plugins). I also use Virtual Painter.

I'm not sure if you have looked at other sites, but Wetcanvas, Innographx and RetouchPro all have discussion forums on this type of art.

regards
alan

Thanks very much for the liks BigAl.

tmlphoto

patch29 wrote:

Here is their artists website. Her work is excellent.

She does do some great work. I think the difference between her and I is that she has artistic talent . Thanks for the links. Very helpful stuff.

patch29

tmlphoto wrote:

She does do some great work. I think the difference between her and I is that she has artistic talent . Thanks for the links. Very helpful stuff.

and a lot of experience and the right software. I think with a little training and the right software you would be able to create a very nice portrait.

gtc

glad i havent offended you with my strong reaction to this-
by the way the effect on the dragon fly is less offensive to my eye than the portrait-the colours and "brushstrokes" on the portrait produce in me a really bad reaction-its not just the process itself ,its the result.I think that this effect will polarize viewers (although they may not give you an honest answer) and you should keep this in mind...I understand the pleasure a 'non- photo looking photo" can bring-i like digital infrared which is not everyones cup of tea-its just that the painter effect is too contrived - it tries to look like a painting and fails.

tmlphoto wrote:

Thanks for your honest opinion. By painterly effect I didn't mean to imply that it could actually pass as a painting or even that I was trying to make it really look like a painting. I'm sorry you don't like the effect. I have commissioned oil paintings of my children and also have many photographs, just looking for another way to express myself I quess.

I can't draw a straight line so I certainly can't really do photo illustration. It sounds like you have more of an issue with the process rather than the end result. I'm surely no threat to any real artist.

Interestingly, the last art contest I entered had two catagories: 2-D and 3-D. The photographs and paintings were judged together. There were also photoillustrations entered into the same catagory. One of my "straight" photos was well recieved and many people questioned whether or not it was a photograph or not. I don't think the non-photographers out there really care that much how the image was created, they just judge the image on its merits. I have also seen photographers selling slightly filtered photos at artists guild shops with both painters and photogs working together.

I think many people are more interested in buying photos that don't really look like photos, but don't really look like paintinings either. I don't see it as an either or issue. Thanks again for your honest opinion.

Khaos

I really don't care for the effect either.

However, I think the original protrait is very good.

tmlphoto

Khaos wrote:

I really don't care for the effect either.

However, I think the original protrait is very good.

Thanks for looking. Here is another filtered portrait. Still searching for the correct effect. Does anyone like this?

leebase

BigAl wrote:

I'm not sure if you have looked at other sites, but Wetcanvas, Innographx and RetouchPro all have discussion forums on this type of art.

I second the plug for the Innographx forum. I happen to live near the owner and she's very talented, and the board is populated with very creative people.

Lee

ginger_55

tmlphoto wrote:

Thanks. I don't think anyone in my town is doing this type of thing, but photogs have been doing canvas prints and "Brush stroke" over painting forever. I do think that there is a market for these types of portraits. Not everyone is willing to shell out the thousands of dollars it cost to get a painted portrait done.

On the technical side, I have found that using the simplifier filter first and then the watercolor filter works best.

Thansk for looking.

Thomas, I KNOW there is a market for that stuff.

And I personally like to mess with filters myself. I did more before joining the more elite group of purist photographers here in dGrin.
I just like to mess around. I don't think anyone who does this, or buys a photo of their whatever with a filter on it expects it to look like a painting.

The people I know who are doing this stuff, they are charging so much, and the people buying, they are rich enough, I am sure they can get paintings if they want them.

One of the people doing quite well with this is a breeder of Corgis, she lives in Canada. Shows dogs, very successfully. So, she photographs and sells the photos of dogs: but they have all been "filtered", I forget what she calls them. I think of it as a gimmick.....??? But what the hey. She has the contacts, is very respected in the dog world and that has sequed into the photography world. She does well.

I don't know anyone personally who has had this done with their children, but I see it advertised locally in the upscale magazines.

Maybe it is not art as we are used to it, but we do have to pay for our cameras, lenses and stuff, one way or another. Or go without. I am lazy enough and shy enough to go without.

But Thomas, I would go for it. And, I, personally, I liked the effect on the little boy, first post. If I knew nothing............just loved my kid, and if I had the money, I would buy one of those gladly.

That goes for dogs, etc.

Probably it could be translated to some kind of landscapes, too, but that would not appeal to me, to some it might.

ginger

ginger_55

I don't like the effect on the little girl in pink. Does she have cataracts?

However, I did say that I liked it on the first photo shown. I definitely think it works with children. Parents are the big spenders: on things of and for their children.

(Don't see my kids rushing out to get a photo of me, mumble, mumble.........)

I will try to get the addy of Laurie Savoie's web site, the person in the dog world, just to see how she is marketing her stuff. But I am sure that you are aware of some of this, Thomas.

You all, there are those of us (not me), who don't like to see digital made into a blk and white. An artistic judgement, whatever.

This could be called business, if nothing else. I personally find it pleasing, too.

g

mercphoto

gtc wrote:

maybe my reaction to that effect is because i know a few painters and like the difference between painting and photography.i also know how hard a life they have chosen,in a financial sense,and would be very dismayed if somehow photoshop started to compete against them

I understand your issue, but job protectionism is never the answer. Nobody has the right to demand the rest of the world stand still and not encroach on his livelihood.

I like the look of many of the filters, don't like the look of many other filters. I'm just starting to learn these. I like the colored pencil filter in Photoshop, for example. Some of the others seem to do very little, or do way too much. I think the effects work best when printed on textured papers too. If you get the secret sauce down I think you can have a good product to sell clients.

Remember, the world changes. If you want to continue to charge a premium for your work you must continue to grow and give your employer (client, etc.) more for his money. If you don't, someone else will.

Does anyone still do canvas prints? I used to date a girl who ran a shop that could do this. The print was developed on a particular photo paper that could be easily separated into two layers. The thin top image layer was then bonded to real painting canvas to give it texture. Cool results.

mercphoto

tmlphoto wrote:

Thanks for looking. Here is another filtered portrait. Still searching for the correct effect. Does anyone like this?

I'm wondering if the effect is too sublte. Also, you might want to do something with the eyes. The colored portion and the pupil are not distinct, and I find that distracting. Keep trying though!

tmlphoto

mercphoto wrote:

I'm wondering if the effect is too sublte. Also, you might want to do something with the eyes. The colored portion and the pupil are not distinct, and I find that distracting. Keep trying though!

Thanks for your comments Bill. I am still playing around with how dramatic/subtle to do each effect, but I will say that much of the effect is lost with downsizing the image for the web. On other site I see people posting full images with crops to show what the real effect is. I think you just have to print them large and see how is looks. I agree with you comments about the eyes, I think I can try to get some detail back by blending with the original image. If I get something better I'll post it. I think there is alot more to doing this than most people think, it's like anything else, it takes some effort to get a good result. I think some people are offended because that see it as just running it through a filter without any skill or thought.

tmlphoto

ginger_55 wrote:

I don't like the effect on the little girl in pink. Does she have cataracts?

However, I did say that I liked it on the first photo shown. I definitely think it works with children. Parents are the big spenders: on things of and for their children.

(Don't see my kids rushing out to get a photo of me, mumble, mumble.........)

I will try to get the addy of Laurie Savoie's web site, the person in the dog world, just to see how she is marketing her stuff. But I am sure that you are aware of some of this, Thomas.

You all, there are those of us (not me), who don't like to see digital made into a blk and white. An artistic judgement, whatever.

This could be called business, if nothing else. I personally find it pleasing, too.

g

Thanks for you comments Ginger. Always appreciated. I have found that "Moms" are much more excited about these techniques than "serious photographers". I know I like the techniques, I'm just trying to dial in how to work the images. I think it takes a little individual seasoning to taste for each image. I'll google Laurie Savoie site and give it a look. Thanks.

mercphoto

tmlphoto wrote:

I have found that "Moms" are much more excited about these techniques than "serious photographers".

That is incredibly believable. And remember that. Lastly, remember you are selling to Moms, not to serious photographers. Do what the market wants, it is the only way to earn a living. Its like the Smugmug print help page says: the experts worry about wide color gamuts, resolution and sharpness. The clients worry about pleasing color and the emotional impact.

patch29

Thomas,

If you don't already get it you need to pick up the September 2005 issue of Photoshop User. It has an article about Photo Painting. They do use both PS and Painter, I have not read the article yet so I don't know if the tutorials are aimed more at one program than the other. It has some info you might like to see though.