so why do you guys use photoshop instead of painter?
so why do you guys use photoshop instead of painter?
It's good to use both. I prefer Painter for its superior brush engine and ease of use. However, there are certain features about Photoshop that Painter doesn't have.
First, there's the brushes. Although Painter is great for mimicking natural media, Photoshop just gives you the meat and potatoes when it comes to creating custom brushes. The process is similar in Painter, but it just seems easier to alter the brush to your liking in Photoshop. Also, the brushes are more versatile. Since they're all dab-based, there is less lagging. You can also set them to whatever blending mode you want; whereas with Painter, the only way to achieve Colour Dodge is to use the Glow brush. Also, you can use the brush presets with any tool you want, including the Eraser, the Smudge tool, and the Art History Brush.
There's also Photoshop's ability to work with layers and photos. Because Photoshop is primarily a photo-enhancing/image editing program, it has invaluable image altering tools, techniques and filters that Painter isn't quite up to par with. The layer pallette is more user friendly; there are more things you can do with blending modes, layer styles, adjustment layers, masks, etc. You can crop/extend the canvas without having to flatten the image.
It's all a matter of choice, but it also depends on what exactly you're trying to do. If you're comfortable working in the CG environment, and just want to produce a good looking illustration, by all means use Photoshop. However, if you want something that's powerful, easy to use, and accurately simulates the look and feel of natural drawing and painting media, use Painter. Remember that software programs are just tools, and they can't make up for lack of talent. Just pick the one you're more comfortable with, and practice until your fingers bleed.
And when you're done, practice some more.
Last edited by lordofthebling; April 20th, 2007 at 06:26 PM.
I like photoshop better. It just seems more intuitive for me. But then again I've been a PS user for years and a Painter user for about 2, so....
I feel that photoshop is more versatile as an overall program. Furthermore if you want a "natural" look you can create a brush to look like it. Also, it depends on how you work. Some artists can make an image from PS appear to be from Painter and vice versa.
Just play around with both and see what works best for you.
Floss your teeth.
I use Photoshop because I used it for years... then I got my Wacom tablet and tried my hand at digital painting in Painter. I couldn't get used to it and the tutorials I did told me to "just paint this colour here" but failed to mention which of the many brushes to use... so they didn't help much. I gave up after a while and tried digital painting in Photoshop and found it much easier... so that where I am now. Doing my first few paintings in Photoshop.
†- Leukeh -†
I am quite new to both programs as I've drawn traditionally my whole life, so I think I can give a quite unbiased opinion on the subject.
In my short experience, it seems to me that the first consideration is the price of either program. You can buy Painter for about half the price of Photoshop, so if you are not a Professional making a living on this, Painter might be the first option in your mind. However, in the same line of thought, Painter is INCREDIBLY more complicated to learn to use on your own than Photoshop, so those who are not pros, might not have enough incentive to do the time and research it takes to learn to use Painter.
As far as their capabilities, the latest versions: PS CS5 and Painter 12, both have made good efforts to offer what the competing software does. CS5 for instance, now has a new set of more "Natural" feeling brushes, and Painter 12 has added a few features that resemble PS's picture and Image editing capabilities.
I believe the old conception that Painter is for 'Traditional' looking results and PS is for digital looking results, pretty much no longer applies.
I for instance, I LOVE the work of Ryan Church. He uses Painter alsmost exclusively, and only has PS open on the side in order to add photo textures to his Painter work.
A quick glance at the work on his site should be enough to see how life-like and creamy the texture of the colors look. Almost like real paint.
Of course I immediately atributed this to the use of Painter, because the work of hard core PS users like Feng Zhu, always looked to me a bit shinnier and 'electric'. sort of like
comparing the color palettes and use of color between the paintings of Leonardo vs that of Michaelangelo.
Of course, this whole false idea of mine was shattered to pieces when I started following the work of Darren Quach, for both videogames and films, and saw the exact same behaviour of the 'Paint' on his Photoshop work, as I've always seen in Ryan's Painter work!
What all this boiled down to for me, is that you can get pretty much the EXACT SAME Results from both Programs. The only thing to decide for me, was which of the two felt more comfortable FOR ME to use. In my personal opinion, Photoshop is A LOT easier to master than Painter, and the Photo and image editing extras help me work a lot faster than I would be able to in Painter. I've also read all over the internet from most professionals, that Painter can be very unstable, and you have to be saving your work often for fear of having it crash or freeze on you, and losing hours of work. Although I did not experience any such crashes while testing Painter, the general consensus is that Photoshop is a much more stable platform.
Perhaps I will eventually buy Painter as well, but for now, I'm very satisfied with Photoshop.
Last edited by Holydivered7; June 27th, 2012 at 03:30 PM.
why are resurrecting a 5 y.o. thread by posting obvious and dated stuff
cs5 is two years old jsyk, there's cs6 out with numerous incredible improvements that painter needs ASAP
while painter's "picture and editing capabilities" are still rudimentary, they can't even get layer masks work without lag.
their selection tools are still damaging images beyond repair. it's 2012.
I don't understand the point of Painter over PS, really. Real, physical paint still exists - why wouldn't you use that if you wanted to use natural media so badly? PS makes up for any shortfall in 'naturalness' a thousandfold with less lag and better everything else compared to Painter.
^ because physical paint isn't always convenient.
less lag = agreed 100 %; better everything - not exactly.
painter needs to get its stuff together, but some of its features are really neat. very artist friendly.
intuos intergration is better too (though ps is catching up rapidly).
(But I also use Photoshop for functions that are better than Painter's).
I'm using Photoshop because it's much faster and it's always being improved (compare it to Painter). It's just more convenient and has so many little/big plugins/filters for artist that make it a real tool (like Lucisart (provides an artistic postprocessing to art), Magicpicker (professional color wheel), Mixcolors (very convenient color mixing), or even Vertus (lets you combine details in image)). It saves so much effort and lets concentrate on making the picture instead of searching the right tool or fighting with the result.
Painter just misses these things. I actually started with using Painter (and Creature House Expression, which is dead now what a pity) and it gave me a true 'natural' look. But when I learnt Photoshop (with tutorials and such) I realized I can do anything I did in Painter - I can do it in Photoshop with more fun. Wacom integration became much faster in the latest CS6.
So my choice is convenience + more features
^ adobe's 3rd party extension support is impressive, but hey, you can write your own xml menus with painter 12! isn't that like exciting and shit?
I can do anything I did in Painter - I can do it in Photoshop with more fun. Wac-om integration became much faster in the latest CS6.in painting there is very hurdles that we can see.but in Photoshop we can modified all pictures as we want.