PS coloring

2009-01-29 04:12:48 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

Pretty good, Poision Envy! Very Happy

Two points:

1. Your friend has some serious talent - that picture is fantastic.
2. Colouring: Keep it minimal, since the picture has already been drawn with shading and such implemented, but it's looking good so far.

Beonarri

2009-01-30 03:23:31 am

For Photoshop coloring there are a million ways to do it. I suggest looking at comicbooks for inspiration. Lots of comics. There are many, many different ways to color images.

Example
Here's a sketch of Red Sonja by Ed Benes:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_BQtOW7ZUlF8/RiDLJ1TJIhI/AAAAAAAAExY/MYeHMsqDuh0/s1600-h/RedSonja_b%26w_EdBenes3.jpg

Here's a simple coloring of it done by one person:
http://comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=20104

Here's another coloring by someone else:
http://comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=21673

My only advice is to play around with it, especially with the way light works across the figure.
Have fun!

Phazar

2009-01-30 08:39:37 am

...

I am taking a Photoshop class at school, and I'm learning some pretty cool stuff to do with it. Too bad my home computer doesn't have Photoshop.... Sad

2009-01-30 10:29:01 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

You poor soul! Most of us have Photoshop, that we, um, bought. *cough*

Phazar

2009-01-30 11:33:15 am

...

This computer did not come with Photoshop, so I would have to buy it. And it costs around $300.

2009-01-30 02:15:29 pm

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

Yeah, like we all *cough* did. Wink

nn12000

2009-01-30 02:33:55 pm

Mister ...

I've thought about buying Photoshop myself, problem is that I would rarely use it. I used CS2 in school, but couldn't figure much out, even with tutorials.

It's because of all you people who buy *cough* Photoshop that it's $300. I'm surprised they haven't started just giving Photoshop away. Rolling Eyes

2009-01-30 02:37:39 pm

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

It's always a double-edged sword, as if people don't 'acquire' it, it'd never be as popular as it is. If they sold it for less, but nobody 'acquired it', it still wouldn't sell as well, as word of mouth does most of its selling. I'm sure there are no end of programs like that.

Poision Envy

2009-01-30 07:01:23 pm

Club 27 Goals

Quote from Phazar:

This computer did not come with Photoshop

I have never heard of a computer coming with photoshop, except for those 8K$+ artist touch monitor custom computers.

2009-01-31 07:12:43 am

Quote from Quietus:

It's always a double-edged sword, as if people don't 'acquire' it, it'd never be as popular as it is. If they sold it for less, but nobody 'acquired it', it still wouldn't sell as well, as word of mouth does most of its selling. I'm sure there are no end of programs like that.

That reasoning doesn't apply to this case, though... Photoshop is professional software. It doesn't need word-of-mouth popularity in order to sell, because the people who use it professionally will already know about it as much as any other tool they use -- and they're the ones who actually use all the features that are why it costs so much. People who just hear about it aren't the ones it's designed for, and -- as you illustrate -- aren't as likely to buy it anyway, while the ones using it to make their living need that legal version. The ones pirating it aren't paying customers and probably won't ever be, because they've already decided they can rationalize not paying for it. They're certainly not doing Adobe any favors by using it illegally and encouraging others to try it out, because that encouragement generally comes with the smarmy wink-wink language like "acquire". It's more like hey look, the cool kids are playing with this program, and I want to be cool, but I can't afford it. I'll just do what they did; everyone does.

If you were trying to use that argument with Photoshop Elements, or something else that's priced for the general consumer market, there might be a faint chance that there'd be some validity in it. But dilettantes who weren't already in the market for professional-grade software aren't going to decide to buy it based on the recommendation of someone who didn't.

[quote="Quietus"]
It's always a double-edged sword, as if people don't 'acquire' it, it'd never be as popular as it is.  If they sold it for less, but nobody 'acquired it', it still wouldn't sell as well, as word of mouth does most of its selling.  I'm sure there are no end of programs like that.
[/quote]

That reasoning doesn't apply to this case, though... Photoshop is [i]professional[/i] software.  It doesn't need word-of-mouth popularity in order to sell, because the people who use it professionally will already know about it as much as any other tool they use -- and they're the ones who actually use all the features that are why it costs so much.  People who just hear about it aren't the ones it's designed for, and -- as you illustrate -- aren't as likely to buy it anyway, while the ones using it to make their living need that legal version.  The ones pirating it aren't paying customers and probably won't ever be, because they've already decided they can rationalize not paying for it.  They're certainly not doing Adobe any favors by using it illegally and encouraging others to try it out, because that encouragement generally comes with the smarmy wink-wink language like "acquire".  It's more like hey look, the cool kids are playing with this program, and I want to be cool, but I can't afford it.  I'll just do what they did; everyone does.

If you were trying to use that argument with Photoshop Elements, or something else that's priced for the general consumer market, there might be a faint chance that there'd be some validity in it.  But dilettantes who weren't already in the market for professional-grade software aren't going to decide to buy it based on the recommendation of someone who didn't.

CuddleBunniezzz12

2009-01-31 10:03:51 am

NIIIIIIIICEE.

I might want a desktop picture of that when it's done.

2009-01-31 11:13:30 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

Quote from Chanoire:

Stuff.

I disagree. I do not believe that the majority of its users are professionals. Only those that use its full range of features might be considered professionals. Almost everybody I've ever known that has the program has used it for basic purposes, such as photo manipulation, or picture creation / editing. Of those, I very much doubt that any of them purchased it legitimately. The same could be said of many different packages.

And there's no need to be arsey about me using a euphemism such as 'acquire'. If you want me to just spout the word piracy, just say so. Sheesh. Rolling Eyes

2009-01-31 11:24:30 am

red chamber dream

chanoire didn't say the majority of its users are professionals. she said the majority of users whom adobe targets that pay for the program are professionals, and with photoshop at least, they're all adobe really cares about.

photoshop elements is actually targeted at you and your peers, so like chanoire said, you could make a more convincing argument using it.

2009-01-31 11:31:41 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

I wasn't really arguing for or against it, to be honest. Looks like another joke is taken the wrong way - perhaps I should try to be less jovial all the time. aiwebs_027

2009-01-31 12:49:39 pm

red chamber dream

Quote from Quietus:

It's always a double-edged sword, as if people don't 'acquire' it, it'd never be as popular as it is. If they sold it for less, but nobody 'acquired it', it still wouldn't sell as well, as word of mouth does most of its selling. I'm sure there are no end of programs like that.

what was jovial about that ?

and by "argument", i meant "position" or "standpoint".

RT-55J

2009-01-31 02:54:43 pm

Armor Guardian

Quote from Quietus:

I disagree. I do not believe that the majority of its users are professionals. Only those that use its full range of features might be considered professionals.

By "professional users" she meant "people who use it for their profession" (ie graphical artists), not "people who are exceptionally skilled with the program."

2009-01-31 04:03:44 pm

Yes, thank you RT (and Ark). For that matter, I use Photoshop and Illustrator occasionally for my job, and you can bet that we (my lab) pay for every license. I have them on my laptop (concurrent license, of course) because I work from home sometimes. Although my husband has access to my laptop when I'm not using it, he is considering buying Photoshop for himself because in the past year he has gotten into photography and wants to be able to do some things that the Gimp can't. Editing one or two pictures might be reasonable to do on my work copy, but he has several thousand of them. Although photography is his hobby, it's a serious enough one that he's willing to invest serious money into his stuff -- the price of the software is not that high compared to the price of the cameras, after all. And while there's no question that he knew about Photoshop before he got into photography, it wasn't until after he did that he considered using it. At least one photography workshop he went to had a segment on using Photoshop, and somehow I doubt there was an assumption that the people there would be stealing it for their hobby/semipro/professional photography work. But they might be more likely to buy it after having it demonstrated in that context -- which is what it is designed for.

"Almost everybody I've ever known that has the program has used it for basic purposes, such as photo manipulation, or picture creation / editing. Of those, I very much doubt that any of them purchased it legitimately."

This is exactly my point.

Yes, thank you RT (and Ark).  For that matter, [i]I[/i] use Photoshop and Illustrator occasionally for my job, and you can bet that we (my lab) pay for every license.  I have them on my laptop (concurrent license, of course) because I work from home sometimes.  Although my husband has access to my laptop when I'm not using it, he is considering buying Photoshop for himself because in the past year he has gotten into photography and wants to be able to do some things that the Gimp can't.  Editing one or two pictures might be reasonable to do on my work copy, but he has several thousand of them.  Although photography is his hobby, it's a serious enough one that he's willing to invest serious money into his stuff -- the price of the software is not that high compared to the price of the cameras, after all.  And while there's no question that he knew about Photoshop before he got into photography, it wasn't until after he did that he considered using it.  At least one photography workshop he went to had a segment on using Photoshop, and somehow I doubt there was an assumption that the people there would be stealing it for their hobby/semipro/professional photography work.  But they might be more likely to [i]buy[/i] it after having it demonstrated in that context -- which is what it is designed for.

"Almost everybody I've ever known that has the program has used it for basic purposes, such as photo manipulation, or picture creation / editing.  Of those, I very much doubt that any of them purchased it legitimately."

This is exactly my point.

2009-01-31 04:16:52 pm

red chamber dream

chanoire already touched on this, but i think a lot of people such as the "everybody" you mentioned only use photoshop because they feel its professional-level quality makes them superior to those without it, even though they don't need it at all. the gimp and similar programs could do everything they need and more; there's really not much reason for a non-professional to bother pirating it.

2009-02-01 08:13:05 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

By 'jovial', I wasn't specifically referring to this topic alone, but the fact that numerous attempts at friendly jibes / jokes (and not just mine) being taken too seriously. I shall be more careful in future.

Poision Envy

2009-02-01 03:29:02 pm

Club 27 Goals

Quote from arkarian:

chanoire already touched on this, but i think a lot of people such as the "everybody" you mentioned only use photoshop because they feel its professional-level quality makes them superior to those without it, even though they don't need it at all. the gimp and similar programs could do everything they need and more; there's really not much reason for a non-professional to bother pirating it.

I don't think that the majority think that, but I think it's because Photoshop seems easier to use, there are more tutorials, and more people talk about it (or at least that's how it is with my experience). I never used gimp much so I could be very wrong.

2009-02-01 03:47:13 pm

red chamber dream

photoshop? easy to use?

... if you say so.

2009-02-01 04:17:53 pm

Quietus: I was using your phrasing ("acquired") as an example of an attitude I've seen from many people, not an example of your specific mode of speech. Most of the references I've seen from those who have pirated that program (and other things, but Photoshop especially) have this smug, 'ha-ha, they couldn't keep me from using it without paying' vibe. Yes, you could have just said you pirated it, but you didn't, and I mean that as an observation of the culture of acquisition (or 'acquisition') rather than of you individually. In other words, this wasn't about humor, yours or anyone else's.

Poision Envy

2009-02-01 04:22:17 pm

Club 27 Goals

Quote from arkarian:

photoshop? easy to use?

... if you say so.

Well it's really easy as long as you have a little bit of help in the beginning... Or maybe it's just a girl thing to be good at Art stuff?