Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
First, let me apologize if this is in the wrong forum, and also if this question is redundant. I've done a search, but perhaps my keywords just arent right because it doesnt seem to be getting me anywhere.
I am looking for some comparisons of Photoshop and Painter.
After having a Wacom on my wishlist for years and years, I've finally broken down and bought one.
I do have photoshopCS2.. but could get painter if it is superior. I've been using photoshop professionally for over 10 years, but never for traditional arts.
I'd really like to use a software that has a more natural feel to it... as well as a natural look to finished pieces. I've been boggling for years at your art here, and know you all use both.. but I'm unsure what is standard, and what needs plugins to achieve etc.... (brushstrokes, mediums, etc)
I know the answer to this question is probably a matter of personal preference, but I am hoping my details above might help with those of you who can identify with them.
Thanks for any advice!
Photoshop can and will do amazing things, but for what you're looking for I'de say painter is far superior
If I remember right, there's a free downloadable trial of painter on corel's website
Check out my sketchbook!
I have been using photoshop for about 5 years now and I recently (as in the package came 3 days ago...) purchased Corel Painter X. I've always been a fan of corel products such as CorelDRAW so I thought I might as well. It's an awesome program. The only thing I don't like is that you can't make your own custom brushes... but don't quote me on that.
Even though I'm relatively new to both (I just started in Painter this year, been using PS since '01), I can see pluses to both programs. I can totally understand you confusion as well. I've heard and seen from so many different artists - how one uses painter and photoshop or how another exclusively used photoshop for some things and painter for something else. I look at some art pieces and can't tell which program the artist used as well as I used to. I try to use the advice from the artists I admire and use their techniques in the two programs.
From what I've discovered so far... If you want you piece to have a more "Painterly" feel, I would use Painter. If you want a piece to have that pure "digital" feel, I would use Photoshop. Here are some examples of what I mean...
Just a couple of examples that really illustrate that you can do wonderful things with both programs, but it really seems like when using Painter, it's harder to get that really "perfect finish" feel to the piece, where as in Photoshop, it seems as if more effort must be extended to really get that "sketchy loose" feeling in the finished product. I'm still struggling myself to come up with a balance between these two powerful mediums.
I also subscribe to both "Painter Magazine" and well as "Imagine FX". Both show excellent sources of inspiration. Hope I helped some!
From what i have seen Painter is easy to get into and hard to master while photoshop is hard to get into and easy to master. Photoshop you can import textures to enhance the look of your image while in painter you can paint the texture (not saying photoshop cannot, painter feels more natural). photoshop seems mechanical with some of the processes, but with Painter it is almost like using real meduims but mixing them. I would say both are exceptional programs, try both out and see which suits your needs.
I will come in from the other side and say that I have repeatedly tried to get into Painter but simply find Photoshop simpler and more intuitive. Painter has some nice features that photoshop doesn't (brush resizing, the palette, etc), but I find its brushes cumbersome, and can never quite get them to do what I want (and they certainly don't behave like real mediums- they just look pretty close). Photoshop doesn't waste time trying to mimic the mediums exactly- it just tries to facilitate good digital painting.
It'll come down to preference, but that's my 2 cents...
I can't agree with you at all. The "outcome" or result has nothing to do with the software. You use pixels in both programs, you got DPI in both programs, therefore the results can be the EXACT same in both. ( I'm not saying that you can get the same result in MsPaint though. )
Both softwares are highly advanced when it comes to precision in brushes, colors etc. You can create custom brushes with both, even though the systems of creating brushes are very different. Painter rely highly on settings, while photoshop rely more on what Shape and Texture you apply.
You can apply textures with BOTH softwares. In very similair yet different ways. You can apply textures to your brushes, You can just overlay your textures.
In painter there is tons of opacity brushes, so the crap about that you can't make something look "perfect" as you wish to say it is crap. What you might
be talking about is the use of "Round Brush" in photoshop, VS Painters more textured once. There ARE "round brushes" in Painter that does almost the exact same thing. If you can't find what fit your needs in painter with the "round brush" then just create one yourself! The only damn difference here is the way a brush overlay its own stroke. Thats different in Photoshop and Painter. While Photoshop blend into the own brush, Painter basically just add more and more "paint" until' you reach the color you picked when you are going over your own brush stroke many times. This though, DOESN'T matter, at all, when you are starting get close finish ( when It would actually matters ) So thats NOTHING to worry about. If you are doing sketches, You get used to both "styles" Very quickly anyways. So I don't think the brush-blending is a trouble in either Photoshop or Painter. Even though I was more used to the Photoshop/ Open Canvas way.
What you really see in the "Painterly" example of yours, Is someone who used a TEXTURE, blended it niceley and integrated into the painting!
You can do the VERY same thing with Photoshop.
As for what I say, If you are used to one Software, and it fit your needs ( which it should do after 10 years of professional use ) then why not stick to it ?
Comparing Painter to Photoshop isn't exactly new, and its hard to come anywhere with the discussion unless you are used to both softwares. And that is hard to explain to one who haven't used both softwares a lot. The difference that is.
However, When I browse the FF section here on CA , I always have troubles with seeing if something is done with Painter or Photoshop. Some people have got it tattooed into their mind that anything that is "clean" and doesn't really have any texture is done with photoshop, and everything thats done, and contains a texture is done with Painter. Even more, those who have a "chalk'ish" look is done with Painter.
You can get the same similarities with BOTH softwares. So the thing about texture and none isn't really relevant. Its about the use of the software.
Well everyone is different.
I didn't mean for someone to take what I said to mean that you couldn't do something in one program vs the other. I'm sure with enough experience in both, that you can. My observation was mainly a general one pointing out what I see on an overall basis within the art community. I watch a ton of artists on DeviantArt, I get digital art magazines, and I view CGTalk and Conceptart.org on a very regular basis. My observations were just those of trends within the artistic community. Can you do the same thing in Painter as Photoshop? Of course. Do most people? No. Why is that? That is really what I was comparing. Not the actual programs themselves, but rather how artists, as a whole, seem to draw and paint with each program. Have a I been "fooled"? Of course! I've seen some pieces done in Photoshop that strongly mimic the style of how a lot of artists choose to paint in Painter. (Though I see less artists using Painter to achieve "typical" Photoshop results.)
I only reply because you appear to be upset at my comparison. I never meant for that to be.
Everything Dile says is true. However, CharReed has a point in that most amateur artists, at least, leave a certain Painter or Photoshop "feel" in their completed pieces.
You can certainly get similar results in either program. The main difference is how you'll get there. It takes a lot of experimenting either way.
I mainly use Painter, and the number one reason is that it's built from the ground up for DRAWING and PAINTING with a TABLET. It handles fast strokes better than Photoshop (draw a bunch of fast circular scribbles in PS and you'll see it turn into a bunch of angles -- not so in Painter), and you can ROTATE THE CANVAS temporarily to apply strokes at a more natural angle. Painter's incredible brush engine is also important to me, but honestly, if Photoshop just responded better to the tablet and could rotate the canvas, I'd be back on Photoshop.
Photoshop, on the other hand, has a very comfortable (maybe because I've been using it for 10 years ), intuitive, LOGICAL interface, compared to Painter's crazy crackhead interface. Photoshop has great tools for tweaking images, color-correcting, etc. -- Painter's are kinda crap. Many people who paint in Painter bring their images into Photoshop for the final touch-up.
If you're going to get into Painter, at least read the entire chapter in the manual on brushes, and the stuff on paper texture. That's 99% of what you need to know in Painter.