Simulated painting

I recently acquired an interesting program, Dynamic Auto-Painter. It takes an image file and from it creates a simulated painting, using your choice of various "famous styles".

It is available here:

http://www.mediachance.com/dap/index.html

I have only played with it a little. It will work on its own, but offers considerable opportunity to "intervene" to produce the result you want.

Here is one of my first efforts.


More after I get a chance to practice further.

I assume real artistes can do this with Lightroom, but we telephone engineers need a little help.

Hi Doug,

Carla is a great subject and I love that original picture and your sauciness in taking that and making the new derivative. I too had a go using Photoshop and a dry paint brush with fine strokes and then blended that with your painitng.


I hope Carla also likes this new version.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Hi Doug,

Carla is a great subject and I love that original picture and your sauciness in taking that and making the new derivative. I too had a go using Photoshop and a dry paint brush with fine strokes and then blended that with your painitng.

Click to expand...

That's very nice. Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Well, Think of it, you don't have to get her to sign a release, she cooks dinner and keeps the bed cozy. Now that's a really super-model!

Asher


All this without a hooji-ma-thing to measure the light exposure by the latest theory dug out from where I cannot fathom!

A lovely subject as Asher wrote and a nice, acceptable result produced with the help of that program. Asher's version is also interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Cheers,

hmmmm
if you want a painting… paint!

Nicolas Claris said:

hmmmm
if you want a painting… paint!

Click to expand...

once again I agree avec le Monsieur de Bordeaux,

a painterly effect doesn't creates a painting - but becomes its opposite:
talking with painters you get pretty fast aware, how important the stroke of the brush, the choice of canvas or paper, the preferencies in specific application of colors might be. This might even be the case, when the artist choses to have strokes barely visible - but there's a choice and more important - a decision.

Hi, Nicolas,

Nicolas Claris said:

hmmmm
if you want a painting… paint!

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not so sure. The last time I wanted a painting, I bought it.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

A lovely subject as Asher wrote and a nice, acceptable result produced with the help of that program. Asher's version is also interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug_Kerr said:

Hi, Nicolas,

Well, I'm not so sure. The last time I wanted a painting, I bought it.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Good! that makes a living for painters (and galleries)…
And next time you want a photograph, you won't have to buy it but to shoot it ;-)

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

I hope Carla also likes this new version.

Click to expand...

She says it is very nice.

Best regards,

Doug

Nicolas Claris said:

hmmmm
if you want a painting… paint!

Click to expand...

Michael fontana said:

once again I agree avec le Monsieur de Bordeaux,

a painterly effect doesn't creates a painting - but becomes its opposite:
talking with painters you get pretty fast aware, how important the stroke of the brush, the choice of canvas or paper, the preferencies in specific application of colors might be. This might even be the case, when the artist choses to have strokes barely visible - but there's a choice and more important - a decision.

Click to expand...

This is a narrow view of art. Ansel Adams had a scratching machine so he could piant effect on his pictured. Dyes, bleaches etc were also used.

Here painting effects are merely mathematical waves sent through a picture. The ultimate composition has not changed and so the essence is there but the presentation is different. So why not? It is of course not a painting but to me is a valid as using a telephoto lens to see something one cannot possible see or sharpening or a wide angle lens.

All these produce effects. The picture of Carla is a proof in point. That effect, the one I offered could have been achieved with a Canon 135 mm soft focus lens. It's more flattering and less clinical than the original.

Labeling the picture as a "painting" is silly. However calling a filter a van gogh filter is a reasonable guide to the effect one is using. I personally feel one can use these filters but think strongly about then blending back at least 50% with the original so as not to lose connection with the real person.

We want to present folk well and have fun, that's all. This is still a photograph but is presented in a considerate and fun way. That's what photography should be, entertaining and uplifting where we can! I've always loved this picture of Carla and returning to it like this is very satisfying, like meeting her once more after a long absence.

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Labeling the picture as a "painting" is silly.

Click to expand...

I must have missed something, perhaps while at breakfast. Has someone here posted something labeled as a "painting"?

Or was that a hypothetical postulate?

Best regards,

Doug

Ken Tanaka said:

I am going to stay far, far, very far away from this thread.

Click to expand...

I would Ken, you could end up in dangerous waters

Mike

I'm afraid that i really haven't come to terms with these filters. Just not my thing. However, a couple of years ago a chap sold a couple of filtered pictures at a regular show where I only sold a couple of cards, so...

Mike

Hi Doug,

Having retired from writing software after 34 years I can appreciate the authors' skill. However such things are still only of novelty value to me. Chacun à son goût

Have you had a look at Pixel Bender ?

Regards,

Stuart

Hi, Stuart,

StuartRae said:

Hi Doug,

Having retired from writing software after 34 years I can appreciate the authors' skill. However such things are still only of novelty value to me.

Click to expand...

Mois aussi, actuellement.

Best regards,

Doug

I don't mind Doug playing with these filters, but Asher's "This is a narrow view of art. Ansel Adams had a scratching machine so he could piant effect on his pictured. Dyes, bleaches etc were also used." drove me a good bunch of years back in history of photography, when photographers felt the imperative of imitating paintings, to help the profane photography looking like fine art.

Today, I'm glad, that photography found its own beeing, and a specific artisanry- "art complex" has been left behind - and I can work whithout that backpack.

Here at the walls hangs a panorama of 4 lithographies, beeing made 100 years ago, draw on a peak at 12'000 feet from a pioneer of panorama imaging; its nice and I like it historically, but I'm glad I haven't to go 50 times up to that peak to get that done with photography, nor need to imitate it with photography, today.

I had no idea I would rip open such a great wound in the insecure underbelly of the confrérie des artistes here. I thought I was just showing a cute tool.

I will certainly be more careful in the future.

Doug

artist or engineer - none of both can't deny history - tecnical inventions implement artistic discussions.

Doug_Kerr said:

I had no idea I would rip open such a great wound in the insecure underbelly of the confrérie des artistes here. I thought I was just showing a cute tool.

I will certainly be more careful in the future.

Click to expand...

Au contraire, mon ami. We need some (gentle) wake-up calls, from time to time. ;-)

In ernest, NO it ain't a painting but it's a new rendering of an image. Converting from Raw is also a kind of an abstraction ..., but what's important is that the end result has some sense of purpose. When the 'effect' with its parameters has been mastered, then deliberate results will follow.

There are several methods of converting to painterly versions around. The challenge is to find the one(s) that deliver the most pleasing results.

Cheers,
Bart

Hi, Bart,

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Au contraire, mon ami. We need some (gentle) wake-up calls, from time to time

In ernest, NO it ain't a painting but it's a new rendering of an image. Converting from Raw is also a kind of an abstraction ..., but what's important is that the end result has some sense of purpose. When the 'effect' with its parameters has been mastered, then deliberate results will follow.

There are several methods of converting to painterly versions around. The challenge is to find the one(s) that deliver the most pleasing results.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Best regards,

Doug

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Au contraire, mon ami. We need some (gentle) wake-up calls, from time to time. ;-)

In ernest, NO it ain't a painting but it's a new rendering of an image. Converting from Raw is also a kind of an abstraction ..., but what's important is that the end result has some sense of purpose. When the 'effect' with its parameters has been mastered, then deliberate results will follow.

There are several methods of converting to painterly versions around. The challenge is to find the one(s) that deliver the most pleasing results.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

My emphasis - this of course if the point. deliberate results from the use of a tool are very different from the automatic output of another filter. Not suggesting the latter about Doug's original post.

My choice has not been to use such tools, but that is not suggesting an 'insecure underbelly', just a choice.

Edited to add - there is an awful lot of photography out there on the net that makes extensive use of other plug-in filter packs, such as conversion to black and white, sharpening, noise reduction and even LR's clarity slider. Some feel more 'photographic' than others

Mike

Mike Shimwell said:

My emphasis - this of course if the point. deliberate results from the use of a tool are very different from the automatic output of another filter.

Click to expand...

Imagine then just the apple on a dinner table is rendered, for some good reason, in Van Gogh typical strokes. The rest of the picture, all the guests enjoying one another are unaltered, but the photograph gains a specific new set of possible meanings.

What then?

Asher

Back to the subject, Carla's famous fur coat! I know what she is wearing!


This is not meant to be a painting just a fun presentation, entertainment. If it works that way, the use of filters is fine by me. It's not intended as more important than that, but fun is worthy in itself!

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Back to the subject, Carla's famous fur coat! I know what she is wearing!

Click to expand...

Yes, isn't IPTC metadata grand! (Even though I've heard it is not photography.)

This is not meant to be a painting just a fun presentation, entertainment. If it works that way, the use of filters is fine by me. It's not intended as more important than that, but fun is worthy in itself!

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Best regards,

Doug