Favorite Digital Art Programs (ones you actually spent $ on)

[aliveinHim]

All you digital art people! What programs do you like? I love Adobe Photoshop CS5 extended and I'm waiting for Adobe Illustrator CS5 to come in the mail. I have Corel Painter Essentials 4 on my computer but I don't know how to use it.

[Jingo Jaden]

Photoshop
Premiere
After Effects
Nuke 3d
3ds max *Including hairfarm and fumefx'
Mudbox
Vue 9,0
Roadkill
Topogun

Probably missed a few, but all of the above are amazing software packages.

[aliveinHim]

Have you used Illustrator?

[Jingo Jaden]

Have you used Illustrator?

Yes, quite a bit. But I prefer photoshop on 90% of the work I do.

[Dante]

PSP 7 - Sadly Corel destroyed Jasc's greatest creation, they should go back to the format that made PSP 7, 7 and start over again.

Photo Shop Elements - what I usually use with my graphics tablet. With just the right touch it works wonders.

Overall, I've never really needed more then these two, although when I get a nice job, I expect to update my Photoshop to the full version. Over time, if there is something I can think of that I can't do in Photoshop, or can't do fast enough, I might eventually create my own programs to pull it off.

[aliveinHim]

It seems that Photoshop is better for digital art than Illustrator.

[Radical Dreamer]

It seems that Photoshop is better for digital art than Illustrator.

That's very dependent upon the kind of art you're doing. Digital painting is obviously much better in Photoshop, but if you're doing something that needs to be resized with ease (logos, vector artwork, etc.), Illustrator is the obvious choice.

That said, yes, Adobe products (CS3, 5, etc.) are pretty much all I use, as an illustration major. XD

[mechana2015]

I own and have used Photoshop CS and CS3, Illustrator CS and CS3, Indesign CS and CS3, Golive CS, Dreamweaver CS3, Flash CS3, AfterEffects CS3, Corel Painter 9.

I own bote the CS and CS3 master suites, so I might have forgot a few I use less often (or haven't used at all like Fireworks).

Photoshop vs Illustrator really depends on three things, the look you want and the program you're most comfortable with and the final application of the project you're making.

[aliveinHim]

One thing I love is my Wacom tablet. I have the fun tablet and I named him Hikaru. It's taken me forever to get used to drawing with him and now I think I married him :3.

[A_Yellow_Dress]

Photoshop, definitely.

[Rusty Claymore]

Hatsune Miku Vocaloid 2. But that's musical art. XD

[TheMewster]

I guess the whole 'paid money on' thing keeps me from presenting GIMP, Aviary (aviary.com), and Sumo Paint (sumopaint.com ?)

[aliveinHim]

Has anyone used Paint tool SAI? I heard it has incredible lineart.

[mechana2015]

I havn't, partially because I'm a bit wary of purchasing anything that I'll need an unofficial translator add on to use. (SAI is japanese only from the company.)

[aliveinHim]

There is Paint Tool SAI in English.

[Alreadyish]

My fav is Deleter Comic Works.....Cause it's simple to use then manga studio. ;v; I also think it's much faster.~~~ I almost didn't buy Comic Works. ;v;a The lord really has things planned far ahead. >w<;;

[ABlipinTime]

I don't have money for art programs. Frankly, too, I start to appreciate the art less because it's just computers doing the work for you. But if I were to get a art program, I would want it to be classy like CS5 or be able to make the stuff as in Digital Blasphemy: http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/

[Radical Dreamer]

Frankly, too, I start to appreciate the art less because it's just computers doing the work for you.

It really makes me sad when I see people saying this, because it's entirely untrue and is a misunderstanding of how digital art programs work. If you're painting a picture with paint and a brush, the brush isn't doing the work for you. It's just a tool you're using to get the strokes you want to get. It takes just as much skill to make something beautiful in Photoshop as it does on canvas; it's just a different medium. No measure of filters or overlays can replace talent. It's not like there's a setting that draws the picture for you. So no, it's not computers doing the work for you. XD It's really just computers acting as the brush so you can do the work yourself.

[AnimeGirl]

I like to use Movie Edit Pro 15. Yes, NOT just to make AMVs (though that is mostly what I use it for). I've also made some pretty neat graphics with it (mostly to touch up what I've already done on GIMP 2.0 or if I need a see-through effect to merge pictures).

[Jingo Jaden]

I don't have money for art programs. Frankly, too, I start to appreciate the art less because it's just computers doing the work for you.

[ABlipinTime]

[quote="Radical Dreamer (post: 1505218)"]It really makes me sad when I see people saying this, because it's entirely untrue and is a misunderstanding of how digital art programs work. If you're painting a picture with paint and a brush, the brush isn't doing the work for you. It's just a tool you're using to get the strokes you want to get. It takes just as much skill to make something beautiful in Photoshop as it does on canvas]

I already do understand (to an extent) how art programs work. And I'm a programmer who has considered (and thought through) how to make various programs for making art. It requires a different talent to use art programs than it does to draw. I'm referring, of course, to hand motion: someone who can hand draw well may not be as equally capable of drawing things on the computer.

Computer programs offer us a greater advantage over hand drawings. For one thing, they aren't messy. There's the erase button. That's fine. That's not a measure of talent. My biggest problem with computer art: computers programs now can get-the-gist. Have you ever watched a video of someone making something in Photoshop? All they do is use airbrushes and then hit a button that gets-the-gist (gets the idea) of what they are doing. Then voila! - The blurred areas are turned into smooth curves and shapes. Everything looks so pretty. Monet would be stunned. (He'd also become very lazy and switch to making art on the computer, if he were able to get one in the 1800s, lol.) So then I think: Okay, how is this special? You're taking advantage of a program's special algorithm. From this programmer's perspective, that algorithm is pretty sweet. From this modern artist's perspective, not so much.

[Radical Dreamer]

My biggest problem with computer art: computers programs now can get-the-gist. Have you ever watched a video of someone making something in Photoshop? All they do is use airbrushes and then hit a button that gets-the-gist (gets the idea) of what they are doing. Then voila! - The blurred areas are turned into smooth curves and shapes. Everything looks so pretty. Monet would be stunned. (He'd also become very lazy and switch to making art on the computer, if he were able to get one in the 1800s, lol.) So then I think: Okay, how is this special? You're taking advantage of a program's special algorithm. From this programmer's perspective, that algorithm is pretty sweet. From this modern artist's perspective, not so much.

What feature in Photoshop is this? I've used Photoshop 6.0-CS5, and I've never seen anything that does this. The only thing I can possibly think that would even be capable of that is the new content aware feature in CS5 that's meant for editing photos, but even that isn't likely. Maybe you're talking about Live Trace in Illustrator? Which doesn't draw pictures for you, it only coverts to vectors (in ridiculously complex ways that usually isn't what you were looking for XD) pictures or shapes you inserted previously.

Either way, I don't know anyone who uses art programs in a way that "gets the gist" of what they want to do, and I'm in a program full of illustrators, graphic designers, and professors. XD All of the digital art I see is just really well done, and typically takes hours of time to do.

[blkmage]

I already do understand (to an extent) how art programs work. And I'm a programmer who has considered (and thought through) how to make various programs for making art. It requires a different talent to use art programs than it does to draw. I'm referring, of course, to hand motion: someone who can hand draw well may not be as equally capable of drawing things on the computer.

Computer programs offer us a greater advantage over hand drawings. For one thing, they aren't messy. There's the erase button. That's fine. That's not a measure of talent. My biggest problem with computer art: computers programs now can get-the-gist. Have you ever watched a video of someone making something in Photoshop? All they do is use airbrushes and then hit a button that gets-the-gist (gets the idea) of what they are doing. Then voila! - The blurred areas are turned into smooth curves and shapes. Everything looks so pretty. Monet would be stunned. (He'd also become very lazy and switch to making art on the computer, if he were able to get one in the 1800s, lol.) So then I think: Okay, how is this special? You're taking advantage of a program's special algorithm. From this programmer's perspective, that algorithm is pretty sweet. From this modern artist's perspective, not so much.

You're basically arguing that technology nullifies art, which is an incredibly absurd argument. By your argument, people who use physical airbrushes are cheating compared to people who use brushes because WHOA all they're doing is TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AIR instead of having to paint it themselves.

Or people who use brushes are cheating because they can get that nice brush effect that's super hard to do with a bunch of sticks.

Or a guy using a letterpress is taking advantage of movable type, which totally isn't as artistic the calligrapher because he's taking advantage of a MACHINE.

Or the guy who's the calligrapher is taking advantage of TECHNOLOGY by using inks and isn't as artistic as the guy who's chiseling away at a piece of rock.

Or people who draw on modern paper are taking advantage of our improved industrial processes and don't need to worry about garbage quality paper from 17th century paper mills or something.

Can you tell that something I particularly loathe is the technology nullifies art argument?

Yeah, basically this.

[chibiphonebooth]

ok as an artist who relies a lot on photoshop, I really have no idea what you are talking about. Working with computer art programs takes a lot of the same time, effort and thought process as working traditionally. sure, there are some shortcuts, like undo, layers, filters, etc. But you still need about the same artistic talent to produce a good piece of art in something like photoshop or illustrator. The program is there to help artists. In fact, i love working in photoshop because i can achieve very realistic pieces of art with half of the mess. ;D

In fact, one of my most recent portraits I did was done pretty much using one type of brush in photoshop. I have a tablet, so the way that my hand works on the computer screen is the same it would if i was painting.

I even have my whole process recorded, if you are so inclined to watch it. What I do on photoshop would be very similar to what I would do if I was painting in oils or acrylics. (in which i've done both.)

[mechana2015]

I'm gonna chime in on the 'I've never seen that feature in photoshop' group with some additional comments.

First of all, you say that Monet would use this 'smoothing' tool. That's preposterous. Monet was an impressionist. Smooth lines were the exact opposite of his goals. He was intensely focused on capturing the impression of a location over the reality of the location, and was not a representative artist, though he was one of the more representative impressionists. His artwork was gestural, and the roughness of the images was rather intentional and charachteristic of the art movement he founded. If he were to stay true to his own artistic style and vision, as he did for nearly 50 years, I dare say he would most likely turn off any assistance at all, given a computer, and find new ways to use the technology, with it's instantly dried paint, flat output and unlimited brush access to explore new methods of impressionism. I find it somewhat depressing that you would presume that all artists aspire to the same style, technique and philosophy of image making, and your comments speak as one who is not well versed in the realities of artistic creation, either in the current time or throughout history.

Second of all, photoshop doesn't work that way. Illustrator does, but they're two separate programs. Illustrator is a vector program designed explicitly to create scalable smooth art, using math, so that makes sense for it to have the ability to smooth things out, since an illustrator document is really nothing more than a series of math equasions with color/gradients/patterns. I have used Illustrators abilities for this to help ink illustrations before, though the results arn't always satisfactory, and often take a decent amount of tweaking and brush building to be acceptable. The smooth lines that result are what illustrator is designed for though, and honestly, I've seen FLASH used for creating painting-like images much more often than Illustrator, and even that is pretty rare, though it may have a smoothing or gisting tool somewhere in it, since Flash is also a vector arts program.

The primary tools used to simulate painting though are all Raster programs. Photoshop, Painter, Artrage, Paintshop Pro and others all operate through altering a document by mapping RGB, CMYK (or rarely LAB) codes to each individual pixel, making algarithm smoothing both extremely difficult and stunningly unlikely to be used even if it existed, for digital painting, merely due to the lag of the get a gist tool trying to process your average 300 DPI 8x10 (or larger) image worth of pixels. Heck, a computer that's short on ram can experience rather notable lag trying to paint normally without an addtional algorithm trying to run in the background.

Link some videos if you've got them please, I'd like to see what you've seen so we can actually get what you're talking about. I've googled 'gist' and 'get the gist' for photoshop and I havn't gotten a hit regarding actual functions of the program, so I'm guessing it isn't in the versions I haven't used either. (5 and 5.5)

[Shao Feng-Li]

I wish Photoshop could just draw for me. That'd help clear my artists block I've had for months.

[Nami]

O_O

I love Photoshop. It's my savior. I recently got an art tablet and it comes with Photoshop elements. However, I wish I had Photoshop CS3 or CS5! D: But, you do what you must (though, my laptop likes to make colors look different than they really are.. or maybe that's just the program?) I must say, I've never used SAI, but I've heard/seen it's good. Plus, there is a certain look about pictures used in SAI. You can see the difference (it's kinda freaky)

And Ditto to everyone's argument on how Photoshop is awesome and does not do the work for you. (Man, I've never heard of that... >>; if it did do the work for you, then YEAH I'd be thinking; "CHEATERS!!" Hahahaha!! )

[ABlipinTime]

What feature in Photoshop is this? I've used Photoshop 6.0-CS5, and I've never seen anything that does this. The only thing I can possibly think that would even be capable of that is the new content aware feature in CS5 that's meant for editing photos, but even that isn't likely. Maybe you're talking about Live Trace in Illustrator? Which doesn't draw pictures for you, it only coverts to vectors (in ridiculously complex ways that usually isn't what you were looking for XD) pictures or shapes you inserted previously.

Either way, I don't know anyone who uses art programs in a way that "gets the gist" of what they want to do, and I'm in a program full of illustrators, graphic designers, and professors. XD All of the digital art I see is just really well done, and typically takes hours of time to do.

I don't remember what program it was, I guess. I just recall seeing a video of it.

You're basically arguing that technology nullifies art, ... ... .

I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended

[Radical Dreamer]

I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended

That's the problem we all have with what you're saying. There IS just as much talent evident in digital art, and just because you saw a video once of a program you can't remember that did something none of us have ever seen to be possible doesn't mean the art is any less respectable than something made using traditional methods. Your arguments for why you don't appreciate the work that goes into digital art have all fallen through to this point, so why do you still think it takes less talent?

[Cognitive Gear]

I don't remember what program it was, I guess. I just recall seeing a video of it.

Are any of these what you are talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq1_BMRvlo8#t=6m10s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPj_Nuue0ZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZJhKpT0FRk