The MaTTe War on Brushes: Photoshop agains to Painter

[Onder]

"By far the most commonly used tool for matte paintings is Photoshop." says in one of the matte painting article in fxguide.com and it goes on "It towers over all other programs, especially with recent additions to its painterly functions. The second most common - especially for those artists who also do concept art - is Corel Painter, a program that was built on natural brush simulation."

To be honest i am not into another Adobe Photoshop-Corel Painter discussion here, however, when i check Photoshop.Matte.Painting.Tutorial pdf book, i simply noticed another side of designs. As i call, discriminate between "Vulgar Matte" and "Matte Art"..

Of course i agree, in marketing economy, you are runing with time. In this situation, you cant work on thousands and thousands of frames each by each as a painter in any product, while your "dead-line" is smiling to you not so far, you must find easy, cheaper and faster solutions. As the tutorial shows, you simply find 4-5 photos, cut, copy paste to your main composition, give some filters, maybe some retouches.......use a render service to saving time and just kick it away.. This is a necessary ways maybe but what about art ?

As thefxguide.com shows the result "For many Photoshop artists it is hard to imagine using anything else. However, many concept artists and digi-matte painters use Painter. The primary motivation of most Painter artists is to produce a less rigid and more open style of image with much of the natural look that comes from natural media. If Photoshop comes from photo-retouch, Painter comes from drawing original images."

The digi-matte artists who use traditional way, such as, on a naked human body, dress it with their own brushes, drawing a backround then paint, give a dimension with their own way, and try to catch reality as posible as they can without using any cut, copy or paste system, Painter is indispensable.

But as i saw in many profiles, someone who knows what is "decupe" and simply read 1-2 tutorials as Photoshop shows, can be a "matte painter" easily ?

this is not only a personal chooice or different styles.. This is more then that..There is a difference in main idea and i am sure you got it..

Before i continue to war between Photoshop&Painter with examples,, especially on Photoshop Creative Suit 3 which will be in market on April-May 2007, i want to learn your opinion first, wish to see what is in your hand..

So guys, what is your sword in this war ? and why ??

[itsmeyatin]

on my sword i carry the adobe logo.
happy fighting :D

[maxfurtado]

ok friend, in that war between softwares only who wins are us, matte painting is the objective, that tool to use and in which moment to use it is magnificent when so many companies put our disposition tools so assaults, for so much I say, don't have fear of to learn and to use the largest number of possible softwares, a small list than I use, Maya, 3d Max, Combustion, Photoshop, Terragen, Affter Effects, Shake, Boujou, the secret is you to know the concept and the application of each a.. Don't be defined by one or for other, use all, they are whole very good!

Best ,, Max Furtado

[kbarts]

So, I am not an artist and not a matte-painter. I use photosho CS2 to draw becouse i have no time lo learn new softwares and i work owith this everyday in my workplace. Only i like drawing.

[RiKToR]

I happen to use photoshop extensively for matte painting, but I have painter and somtimes when Im just cluncking away at the tablet and sketching or doing some painting, painter seems to be more workable then PS. I believe painter is better for the concept art approach. I personally would enter painter and draw the colour concept with layers, then save it to a PSD and take it to PS for the photo integration and final touches.

[hess]

I think here is a big missleading of the discussion.
Photoshop has the abitily to work best with image manipulation and different file formats (including .hdr formats) and Painter has a better ability to simulate natural media brushes. So, I think there is no battle at all. Different programs for different results. Painter is more concept based driven and Photoshop is more on plate integration.There is a biiiiig diference between a concept artist and a mattepainter.
But afterall these programs are just some tools that help u do the job, NOT doing the job for u. Then comes the pipeline integration that depends on most cases by the tools used by the studio in the project.
The most important thing for a good mattepainter is to have an art background for better understanding the composition, perspective, light and mood, and that makes the difference, not a program.

Remember: THE PROGRAM IS JUST A TOOL AND NOTHING ELSE AND U MUST DO THE JOB, NOT THE PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM CAN HELP U DO IT, NOT DOING IT FOR U.

[Onder]

I think here is a big missleading of the discussion.
Photoshop has the abitily to work best with image manipulation and different file formats (including .hdr formats) and Painter has a better ability to simulate natural media brushes. So, I think there is no battle at all. Different programs for different results. Painter is more concept based driven and Photoshop is more on plate integration.There is a biiiiig diference between a concept artist and a mattepainter.
But afterall these programs are just some tools that help u do the job, NOT doing the job for u. Then comes the pipeline integration that depends on most cases by the tools used by the studio in the project.
The most important thing for a good mattepainter is to have an art background for better understanding the composition, perspective, light and mood, and that makes the difference, not a program.

Remember: THE PROGRAM IS JUST A TOOL AND NOTHING ELSE AND U MUST DO THE JOB, NOT THE PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM CAN HELP U DO IT, NOT DOING IT FOR U.

No we cant say that.. if we accept this idea, then i can simply say "The Tower of Babel" oil painting by Pieter Brueghel in 1563 is the FIRST MATTE painting in the world and we must say "Brueghel" is father of Matte painting....Then i will ask you what is Landscape painting ??? Because he was NOT.. and this painting is not the first matte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3ABrueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3ABr ... -babel.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3ABrueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg)

This is from my research about "history of matte painting" that very soon we (Digital Arts Magazine) publish it as a pdf file.

Anyway,I dont want to write more about it here, because the title is different.. we are discusing that in another topic :-)

[RiKToR]

Onder, I am not sure what you are getting at here?

Hess was simply stating that difference between painter and photoshop is negligiable as programs but rather the skill of the artist.

A matte painting is contextual piece of artwork designed for a specific purpose when creating films, which is not in dispute.

[Onder]

Onder, I am not sure what you are getting at here?

Hess was simply stating that difference between painter and photoshop is negligiable as programs but rather the skill of the artist.

A matte painting is contextual piece of artwork designed for a specific purpose when creating films, which is not in dispute.

At the top of the page i asked "what is your sword in this war.." Of course we are not in war, we dont need a sword and we are not fighting here. it was an expression,

My last message, i just tried to take a notice CG is important, in digi-matte world its very much important, i just gave an example to show the difference between landscape painting-matte painting to support my main idea.

I dont want this topic goes on different way, we are already discussing that in another topic, as some answers "non of them, my hand is important", anyhow i just respect, nothing more.

But i asked for to see photoshop-painter user difference.

which program you prefer and why ? That is all

Thank you..

[Ricardo Garces]

Hi Onder!

I have no intention to state the obvious, but Photoshop was built with the photo-manipulation in mind, and Painter was intended to be a Digital Canvas with brushes built with close behavior similarities with real ones.

When choosing which program to work with, I think we have to track back into "how did the artist began". I, for instance, started playing around the computer, and I have no traditional art experience, but I felt the need to express my ideas and art. So I started out with photo-manipulation and painting on top, just like many younger people that you can easily spot around here.

Traditional artists or people who have tried painting on paper or canvas, and who have that experience, will be curious about Painter, and will probably choose it over Photoshop.

On the other hand, photo-manipulation offers faster and better looking final products than painting, attracting more learning artists to it.

Photoshop is closer to Painter than the other way around. Therefore in my opinion I would prefer Photoshop over Painter.
Although I also agree that it is not the software that makes the art, it's the artist, but it sure has alot to do with it's quality.

If I had to give advice, I would suggest a software cocktail, with 3D and 2D programs as ingredients, for a good MattePaint.

Don't take me wrong, I just ordered "Introduction to Painter, by Ryan Church" from The Gnomon Workshop. We have a say here in Portugal that goes "O saber não ocupa lugar" ( "knowledge takes no room" , I am not sure the translation is perceptible, but it refers to the space available in the brain to acommodate knowledge ).

Kind regards,

Ricardo.

[adam]

On the other hand, photo-manipulation offers faster and better looking final products than painting, attracting more learning artists to it.


It's how you start a matte painting that truly counts.
Learn to draw and paint traditionally and you'll get a lot
further ahead. Photos are important, but don't neglect the
fundamental traditional art skills that matte painters need to
do great work.

On the software debate, you can use both Painter and Photoshop if you like.
I would say the majority of matte painters use Photoshop as their
primary tool. But again, don't forget your pencil, paper, real paint, real
miniatures, etc as things that can be used in conjunction with digital
tools.

Best,
-Adam

[Loki]

For matte paintings in a production environment, Photoshop is the way to go.

Especially when working with RAW photos, frequent changes, 16-bit log files and needing to prep stuff to be passed on in the pipeline.

[jmorri26]

Photoshop all the way. Painter is...nice, but I can only ever justify using it for concept work. I'm an oil painter as well so I end up having to high of an expectation for Painter simulating paints and brushes that never pan out. The software is layed out more open ended, but that just makes it feel clunky to me and take too long to get what I need out of it.

But, both are good tools for different results.