/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4294329
Great thread you dumb shit

That's because they're using OS X, Photoshop and Wacom are better on a Mac.

>>4294329
A thread became a hard-dry mess for this

>>4294345
You know nothing about computers hahaha

Coomer

>>4294348
Hackintosh your PC and then say that again, facts are facts.

>two brushes are the same shape
>why do they have different edges!!!!!
intelestingu

>>4294358
You just dropped in the thread to make yourself feel better about buying a mac fuck off fart huffer

>>4294345
there might be something onto it since the girl was using a mac, and probably most of the others did

>>4294329
do they use the blending tool?

>>4294362
>tweaking edge transition of a brush completely changes the way photoshop blends
ok retard

>>4294379
No, basic brush. I've seen it a couple times before while randomly watching chink vids and it was bit strange that even identical brushes that you dl from them somehow act differently. If what this anon >>4294345 said is correct then that would explain it, since a lot of them do use mac.

Maybe a gif comparison if someone has a mac here can demo it.

>>4294379
i believe its just a software with good drawing engine, like sai or csp. you can try it if you only use photoshop, it makes a great difference. you dont need a blending tool in these programs, the brush tool itself can blend the colors nicely

>>4294404
this is blended only wth brush in csp, you dont even use the color picker, just swirling the brush around the colors

>>4294329
Yup. To make smooth transitions all you do is lower flow to around 25- 40% and then enable opacity and flow if you want a smoother transition. This is just one way though. You can also just erase with a soft brush at low flow too to make transitions too. Other thing you can do is since photoshops smudge can be specific to layers by toggling off sample all layers. You can smudge only the data of that layer. But make sure its scattering is enabled tho.

i feel attacked

>>4294454
dude get csp or sai or whatever, dont make your life harder than necessary

>>4294329
Sauce?

>>4294409
You can also do this with the mixer brush in photoshop.

>>4294496
Thats nice, did you add any colors or just blend?
i think the problem is that i always believed that when you paint you should never blend or use digital tricks and instead focus on shapes.

>>4294398
i have a mac

>>4294623
i just blended the colours that were in the original picture with the 'transparent watercolor' brush in csp
i mean sure you shouldnt make a supper blurry mess where everything is blended but its hard to achieve any kind of smooth surface by using just color picker, i see artists using mixer brushes or blending in csp/sai all the time so dont feel bad about it. if you have your shapes/forms/whatever placed correctly then i think its perfectly fine to help yourself with some blending tools to save time

>>4294345

Messy hard brushwork is the absolute peak of soulfulness

>>4294409
What brush is this
All the things I've tried so far I'm CSP gave me herpes. Either totally destroy the color or blend slow as fuck

>>4296751
Same, and it’s not just CSP, Sai is the same. It works fine when doing gradients like in the pic, but it just blurs everything into a mess and kills all hue variance. But assuming >>4294496 is the same anon, he just gets a shitty smudged mess too.

What are good places to watch gud artists work? I just know of twitch and picarto

>>4296618
Yeah I’m kind of surprised by how much people hate on basic hard round brushes. If you work at high resolutions and scale down everything softens up considerably anyway. I used to have trouble getting enough contrast in my work when I first started with digital tools. I like what Sai and CSP can do but I do think you run the risk of losing interesting texture. It can kind of make people’s rendering look samey.

its because they know how to utilize brushstrokes because they practice traditionally first and master it then go on to digital.

wacom/photoshop pc

Been using PS on a Windows PC my whole life, could never get the smoothness I wanted. Is it really because of Windows vs OSX? Can someone with a mac and photoshop just quickly blend some colors together using a 100% hard round brush and colorpicker. No blend tools or smudge or anything. I'm genuinely curious.

>>4294329
>>4294454
>>4294496
Hol' up. I've never really attempted digital painting, but is it true that one can achieve a 'blended' look without actually using watercolor/mixer/blend/etc brushes? I know it's possible to blend like that in traditional painting with practice, but how does that translate to digital without it looking choppy (or relying on watercolor/airbrush-type brushes)?

>>4299484
Windows is garbage because it uses a 15ms resolution timer, Photoshop will call an higher resolution so the timer goes to 7ms, then to 3ms, then jumps back at another value, this effects the drawing cursor and makes it janky, the brainlets at MS came up with the ultra laggy DWM Aero which v-syncs the screen but at a cost and even then it's never as smooth as OX X. On OS X this doesn't happen at all, the cursor is always smooth, always, old versions of OS X are even better because you can disable V-Sync but the cursor is still smooth. If you have adequate specs you can get a cheap $16 SSD and Hackintosh your PC. If SAI had a Mac version I would never use Windows.

>>4299518
That's really interesting, first time anyone could actually give me any kind of reasoning for 'hurr durr apple is best.' I've only ever played around on an ipad pro when i tested out the pencil, but didn't use photoshop on there so it was hard to notice.


I'll look into this, I'm still hoping osmeone can give some simple hard/round brush blending examples from a mac in this thread just so I can see if there's a noticeable difference.

>>4296792
Wtf so is the best way just hard brush + blend?

>sub to patreon
>download backlog
>unsub before paying LOL
>upload to redbubble to make the big bux™
>get reported for art theft, account gets banned
>"m-minor setback ahah"
>go to etsy
>same thing
>deviantart
>same thing
>print some out, go to convention for BIG weeb bucks™
>get asked to leave without refund):
>lurk
>find people who want pics but don't use patreon for whatever reason
>sell them art packs for decent bux™
>they open PayPal dispute and chargeback
>can't dispute it because stolen work, lose/lose
>all a-a-according to p-plan!

>>4299586
why are you complaining? are you some sort of retard? just upload to any stupid server like mega and put the link behind 5 paid captchas and get money, seriously people like you really piss me off

>>4299556
The best I’ve found is hard brush and onscreen mixing OR hard brush + soft brush for when you don’t want much texture. Obviously texture brushes if you need heavy texture.
I’m disappointed too, blending colors into gradients is extremely easy and intuitive with csp and the like, but I can’t figure out how to make it not suck in actual painting, and I never found any good artist’s process showing them using it, the only good examples I’ve come across is with Painter, but I’m not sure how comparable that is and I never managed to make a brush that works the same way.

>>4299740
>onscreen mixing
As opposed to what, offscreen mixing? What does that mean

>>4299492
Why is using watercolor and airbrush type brushes "relying" on them?

>>4299760
It's just the same tard who think you can use a 3 inch house painting brush to do an entire painting including the fine details.

>>4299755
It means you’re mixing the colors on the canvas as opposed to a palette or using a smudge tool or something. Your palette is technically on the screen, but let’s not be autistic.

>>4294329
I saw on this guy's twitter that he's now working at Lab Zero from where they kicked out Alex Ahad.

>>4299833
Is mixing colors on a palette a thing in digital? I vaguely recall seeing someone doing this in painter

>>4299837
Yes, opaque painting is a thing

>>4296618
This dirty "muh brush strokes" style is outdatet, since years

>>4299845
your style is outdated since years dumb crab, that still looks infinitely better than anything sakimichan has ever done.

>>4299841
What do you mean? Picking colors from a wheel isn't "color mixing"

>>4294329
It's personal taste, both effects are easily accomplished.

I personally prefer the tooth of your latter description and find the OP pic style to be plasticy and unappealing. But neither style is superior, it's literally personal preference.

>>4294623
This is great while you're still studying value and colours, because many beginners can get bogged down with trying to blend their colours naturally or whatever and skip the step of actually having good hue and value. So of course blending is okay, but it's also excellent practice to force yourself not to blend for at least a few months/ a year (depending how often you study)

>>4299861
>RGB
It literally is.

>>4299837
Kind of, since certain colour palette modes allow you to adjust the hue saturation value etc individually and it does feel a little more like manually "mixing" than just picking from a wheel. Obviously to traditional purists this isn't strictly "mixing" paints, but there are certainly more options to adjusting your colours than just clicking on a wheel.

>>4299869
>>4299871
Ok, so you are literally just talking about pulling sliders and selecting colors. Calling that process "offscreen color mixing" seems a bit superfluous. I assumed anon was talking about a digital equivalent to mixing colors on a palette.

>>4299886
It’s not called “offscreen color mixing”, you’re the only one who brought that up. Mixing the colors already on the fucking canvas is called on-screen color mixing. it’s not something we made up, you fucking autist. That shit you do with a color picker, that’s on-screen color mixing.

>>4299886
>digital equivalent to mixing colors on a palette.
That’s literally what the sliders are, dumbass. You add or subtract colors.

>>4299886
I mean, you're the one who imagined literally mixing pigments with a knife or some shit. It may not be exactly what you imagined in your head, but the process of mixing colours off the canvas does exist. It's that simple.

>>4299893
>It’s not called “offscreen color mixing”, you’re the only one who brought that up. Mixing the colors already on the fucking canvas is called on-screen color mixing. it’s not something we made up, you fucking autist. That shit you do with a color picker, that’s on-screen color mixing.

You mean mixing colors by painting on the canvas and using the color picker on the result?

>>4299895
I disagree with the analogy, but I can see how it works for someone else.

>>4299898
Yes, I recalll seeing this in Painter, a subtractive mixing mode which literally mimics the traditional process

>>4299910
Google is your friend.
https://www.ctrlpaint.com/dp101-3

>>4299913
>https://www.ctrlpaint.com/dp101-3
Okay, so the ctrlpaint guy is the one who came up with the terminology? Makes sense I haven't heard of it before since I haven't looked at their material much. But thanks, that clears thing up.

>>4299915
https://books.google.rs/books?id=iYmIeqES1fYC&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=%22on-screen+color+mixing%22&source=bl&ots=OhVd33CVig&sig=ACfU3U2ULDAItIeR1aD9ZJHMUBtXrniH7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB94nFwfbmAhUhpHEKHSCvAL8Q6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22on-screen%20color%20mixing%22&f=false
No, you stupid fucking faggot, it’s a term describing the fundamental manner in which digital color works, you stupid fuck.
Stop posting.

>>4299924
I see, so it is an old and niche term that's rarely used nowadays. Thanks

>>4294345
I know most people here won't fall for this troll but for the retards, this is false. I work with both windows PC and Mac, and I had the same issues with the brushes. It's all about tweaking settings.

>>4299967
Which settings in particular?

>>4300318
opacity and flow

>>4300361
Yeah played aorund with all the brush settings, a lot. Still can't get something that feels good.

>>4300418
https://vvvv.org/contribution/windows-system-timer-tool

You know why.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/3oatuw/those_of_you_gaming_on_windows_10_heres_how_i/

Also relevant to Photoshop.

>>4294329
>it's buttery smooth and blends like sai
smooth, blendet to death art is shit anon.
you can use digital looking, hard ps brushes, or you can use weeb-blending stuff like boro dante, as long as you can handle the brushstrokes, you are good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8P3kmm_lVU

>>4300437
Would using this tool help make things better? What settings should you use?

>>4299492
You work at very high resolutions, and the brushes will be pressure sensitive with various settings being pressure enabled like opacity and flow. You will carefully build up layers. Even if it looks goofy viewed full scale it is almost always sized down and looks a lot better.