Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Photoshop vs. Painter (or other art packages)


Hey ... I'm cobbling together an article on Photoshop vs. Painter for Computoredge. The article also covers various smaller packages like Artrage, Opencanvas and Gimp, though only peripherally. Naturally, I have both Photoshop and Painter and typically use both on any given project, but I wondered whether any of you had a favorite or a reason for choosing one over another (or any smaller package). I can imagine some of the others are best (even if they're not as feature rich) because they're free. But there are bound to be other informational tidbits you can share.

Naturally, anyone that makes it into the article can have their name in it, as well as a link to a Web site. I want to turn the article in this evening, so let those fingers fly if you want to weigh in on this subject.

;-)

7 comments:

MJM said...

I am a ferverent Paintevangist. There's nothing like it for digital drawing when you don't want anyone to know it's a digital drawing! Even some of the staunchest traditionalists in my children's illustration listserv, (www.picturebookartists.org are now turning to Painter (or a combination of Painter and traditional) as a medium. Photoshop is great for a more graphic look, and I think its color and image tweaking capabilities are superior at the moment, but for plain out stylus-equals-pencil, nothing beats Painter.

rickart said...

I've never been able to work with it more than a few minutes at a time. I suppose that with more time I could figure it out, but since it doesn't work like Photoshop, I've found it a little inexcessable.

Mr Goodson said...

I'm totally Photoshop. Stephen Silver thinks the world of Alias Sketchbook Pro and does all his character design work on his Cintiq monitor and that program. It does have a nice feel on the drawing and ink tools. I've found that I can duplicate anything Painter will do with a Photoshop custom brush setting. But you have to know how to customize brushes and Photoshop doesn't make that obvious. The issue of drawing with the program doesn't come up for me because I always scan my pencils.

MJM said...

No, no, you guys are crazy. Photoshop is for coloring, not drawing or painting. The drawing tools in Photoshop are TRYING to be like Painter's, but the mathmatics involved in making the brushes are completely different. 95% of Painter's focus is on recreating traditional media, 95% of Photoshop's is on image manipulation, filters and color management. Each is really built to be excellent for a completely different set of tasks that don't quite overlap. I do need to use both programs every day.

I do every sketch directly in Painter. Every piece on my website, not matter what medium it looks like I used, was done first stroke to last stroke in Painter. If you "just" use Painter for drawing, it is as easy as deciding which pencil or brush to pick out of the cup on your desk, and which color paint to dip it in.

Rick, what's the last release of Painter you've tried? 9.5, the current release, is excellent. It works (and they have for several releases) very much like Photoshop, but really, once I pick up my stylus and start to draw, the only commands I use are UNDO and SAVE, ZOOM,the grabber tool and brush resizing!

PS There's a free 30 day use download of Painter 9.5 on the Corel website if anyone would like to try it.

Mr Goodson said...

I will try the latest Painter. Do you have a Cintiq monitor for your drawing Maurie?

MJM said...

No, Ellis. I'd rather have the Apple 30" cinema screen than the Cintiq. I actually think it would be annoying . . . just imagining the side of my hand rubbing on the screen in the summertime -- wonder if the screen gets sweaty. Another couple of advantages I see to using a regular monitor -- you don't have to bend over the drawing, making it a little easier to avoid unintended foreshortening from drawing on a tilted board. Also, I think ergonomically, not bending my neck over a board has to be good. (Though maybe that discomfort has always had more to do with my lack of height . . .)

TopCat said...

You all made it (with a few edits) into the article. Thanks so much. I'll put out a link to it when it is published and perhaps Rick Schmitz will get an assignment to illustrate it ... ;-)