Don't let anyone tell you Art Rage is just a toy. It's an extremely powerful piece of software with a lot going on behind the scenes that people don't realize. I think it's often considered to be a toy is because the interface is simple. But there's no standard out there which says "if it's not expensive, difficult to learn, and has 8,329 features, it's not a professional piece of software".

With that in mind, the one thing Art Rage lacks which, I believe, prevents it from being taken seriously by professionals is support for print resolution (300dpi). You can create a document with the correct number of pixels, but it still exports at 72, necessitating conversion in Photoshop or a similar piece of "professional" software. Ambient Design says this will be rectified with version 3.0, so it may not even be an issue much longer.

I use AR almost exclusively and I love it. (I use PS for levels correction, resizing, and other post production details.) Then again, I not producing work for print, either. I would say as long as you're creating work for the web, there is nothing second-rate about AR.

Hmm. I'd never even noticed the 72dpi thing. Well, I use Photoshop for post production work anyway. Heck, you need it to write text for the copyright notice.

I think ArtRage expects you to use Photoshop with it as the end part of the work flow. Thusly why it exports to PSD.

I guess this is sensible. Painter tries to have Photoshop abilities built in. But Photoshop kicks its ass at any tasks like that. So you're better off moving to Photoshop for the post production part anyway.

Still, there are times where I'd like to make some Photoshop-like adjustments earlier in the process. And that becomes a bit of a problem to work around.

I can open ArtRage's exported PSD files in Paint Shop Pro, and the open source program Gimp can open it too.

You can still make photoshop-like adjustments midway through the process. I wasn't able to see if ArtRage supported PSD files that had vector layers in it because my Paint Shop Pro is only able to create PSD files that are all raster. ArtRage can open PSD files with multiple layers, preserving the individual layers though.

I like using ArtRage for coloring because of its efficiency. My computer is not very fast and it doesn't eat up processor speed.

The problem is that you lose the additional ArtRage information when you go to PSD and back. ArtRage doesn't just have the color and transparency of each pixel, but also the thickness of paint, dryness, material, metallic content, etc. All of that is lost in the process.

Its basically exactly as you described. Painter has a ton of functions that are extremely useful. Kinda like photoshop, while still simulating real media.

However, Art Rage simulates real media way better than Painter does, and has a few painting tools that work better than painter.

To be honest, i like painter better because i like how it simulates real media like that. It does a wonderful job, but thats all it really does. If your looking to simulate real media, from the canvas to the brush strokes, art rage is the way to go.

If your looking for a digital media editor that simulates real media, painter is the way to go.

I got painter with my tablet, and while i like it, i prefer some of the functions from art rage.

In the end though, ive basically just given up and have tried to learn how to simulate real media using photoshop.

My bad, in the third paragraph, it should say i like artrage better.

I think I end up seeing Painter as being half way between Photoshop and ArtRage.

Photoshop is entirely digital image manipulation. It's digital in every sense. It does nothing in an organic way. It's capabilities are powerfull, but they naturally want to be sterile and plastic looking. You have to work at it to produce a natural looking result.

ArtRage is entirely organic. It does nothing in a digital way. It's all simulation of real world media and tools. Everything you do produces a natural non-sterile looking result just inherently. However, it's completely unable to tackle anything but an organic look.

Painter seems to be somewhere between the two. In some ways, it's organic. In other ways, it's starkly digital. But it's neither as good as Photoshop at what it does. Nor is it as good as ArtRage at what it does. It's like a jack of all trades.

You're right about Photoshop being very sterile since as you say it's heritage is digital image manipulation and not other kinds of art. One thing I have heard from artists who do use Photoshop was that the key for them was finding the right set(s) of brushes. Unfortunately, Adobe ships Photoshop with only very basic brushes which I guess are mainly geared to image touch-up more than anything else. Apparently, they expect you to either make your own brushes or get them from somewhere else if you plan to create other forms of art. The brush controls in Photoshop have so many options that I've always wondered if one could achieve results similar to something like ArtRage by coming up with the right settings, and I wish I knew where these people were getting their brush presets from. There are tons of Photoshop brushes available on the Internet, some free and some paid, but who knows which are any good.

Anyway, just wanted to mention the brushes in case you had interest in going the Photoshop route. Maybe you could ask around the other artists who do use Photoshop and find out where they got their brushes.

Heh. I'm afraid Photoshop's brushes aren't anywhere near the dynamics of ArtRage's brush.

Photoshop does have a lot of settings you can configure on the brushes. Painter has several times as many settings as that, but still comes up short of ArtRage's brush dynamics.

Oddly enough though, ArtRage's brush has only like 4-5 knobs to turn for its settings. Most of the complexities of that brush are carefully tuned and optimized by the developers. That's kindof the nature of ArtRage. But clearly there are more actual elements in ArtRage's brush dynamics than there are in Painter or Photoshop.

Heck, ArtRage even tracks the thickness and dryness of paint at each pixel. Those are concepts neither of the other two programs even have. ArtRage calculates how the thickness of paint is pushed around under each bristle of the brush as you stroke over the canvas.

How cool is that?

That is pretty cool. No wonder you like using ArtRage!

Things like this are apparently the reason I hear of others using more than one program on a routine basis. Sounds like there's nothing wrong with sticking with ArtRage to me.

Cool stuff.

I should start out by saying I'm not an artist myself (I wish I was but unfortunately I have trouble just drawing stick figures), but perhaps I can offer some advice that might be useful:

First off, creating art is much more to do with the talents of the artist than the tools that artist is using. The best example of this was an article I read by someone who teaches photography. In it, the instructor said he frequently heard his students lament that they couldn't take good pictures because they couldn't afford the thousands of dollars that the professional gear costs. His response was to go out and buy an inexpensive camera and show the really wonderful pictures he could take with it. Photography is all about composition and light which can be captured with modest gear. It's really about the talent of the photographer and not the gear. Sure, fancy gear can make it easier to capture some of those moments, but if the photographer doesn't have a good grasp of the concepts in the first place, then all the gear in the world isn't going to make a difference.

I hope I'm right, but I think this analogy applies to other types of art as well. I think it's really about whether the artist can capture what they want on the page much more so than it is about the tools used in the process. If you're able to get the results you want with ArtRage, then I don't see anything wrong with sticking with it.

I also know of artists that routinely use more than one program when creating a piece. When they reach a point where something they want to do with the piece is difficult in one program, they just bring the piece over to the other program, do what that program does well, and then perhaps move back to the first program. Basically, they're playing to the strengths of each program.

My advice would be to stick with what you're comfortable with as long as it lets you achieve the results you're looking for. When there's something you want to achieve that your current program doesn't support the way you want, then I would use that as motivation to experiment with another program. The best time to learn a new program like this is when there's something you really want to do with your art since you'll be highly motivated to work it out. That's always the best time to learn anything, and it works much better that way than trying to force yourself to use a program that doesn't feel comfortable.

I know I can't quite answer your original concern since I'm not an artist, but I hope this is useful anyway.

This is a great point really.

And maybe it's good to think about it from a photography perspective since that field of art is much more prone to being irrationally concerned with the tools than this one. There's been a lot written on the subject of 'Lense Envy'.

And I think you've got a good point about using multiple programs, too. I already use Photoshop for some portions. Maybe I should figure on using Painter just if the need comes up.

I'm kindof thinking that in any case, I should continue to spend some time here and there learning and experimenting with Painter. And maybe other programs, too. And then just use whatever I care to as my primary program. Which continues to be ArtRage.

Not media.

Cheers,
OT

"artists should just use whatever art tools gets results for them." <- Stick to that.


That said, I gave up on both completely for now and created my own brushes in photoshop which has been working great for me personally right now.

I paint completely differently now than I did when this subject last came up, so I approach hi-res by startitg low-res and stepping it up now, which ArtRage is able to handle just fine... I suppose now it's just a comfort thing. I like the feeling of real media and using ArtRage robs me of that so I can never get the same results as real media. Painter and Photoshop can mearly simulate them and thus I don't get that strange feeling from them.

That's interesting. Your very pro-Painter opinion last time has been a lot of what's stuck with me nagging in the back of my mind that I'm missing the boat by using ArtRage.

And now you've switched to something else.

That does seem to enforce the notion of just using whatever is working. In fact, since I've had some time paying some attention now, I'm seeing that other artists do seem to just rove between the various paint programs. Switching occassionally (or often).

All adding to the notion that I just shouldn't be worrying about it.

Though I am thinking that I should at least dabble in many art programs from time to time. Just to see if anything connects and to be aware of what's out there. They change with new version releases after all. Heck, ArtRage has changed quite a lot with its releases.

I'm actually pretty flighty with art programs to be perfectly honest, I just speak very loudly for what calls to me at that time or if it's something I just recently better learned how to utilze. I'm more or less stubborn from day to day and unfortunately I just let that effect my opinions too much at times. I've seen so much in this last year that I can't believe anything other than do what feels right when it comes to art.

On another note what was that lense you were suggesting to me that one FC? I didn't write it down and my memory isn't the best.

I don't remember. What was this lense going to be used for? And is it for a Canon?

I suspect it was a Canon EF 50mm f1.8. It's a very fast lense that can take pictures in near darkness without flash. It's as sharp or sharper than pro lenses. And it's only $75. Canon doesn't want you to know they sell it.

The down side is it feels like it came out of a cracker jack box. It works fine and the actual optics are top, but it feels very cheap when you touch it.

I was going to be using it as mostly a replacement for my general use lense which is a hunk of crap. Even taking photos out of sketchbooks in full sun comes out a little dark on my current. Yeah, it's a Canon.

Yeah, that was the one. I've found that somethings can feel like tinker toys and still be quite awsome overall.

That's interesting. Your very pro-Painter opinion last time has been a lot of what's stuck with me nagging in the back of my mind that I'm missing the boat by using ArtRage.

And now you've switched to something else.

That does seem to enforce the notion of just using whatever is working. In fact, since I've had some time paying some attention now, I'm seeing that other artists do seem to just rove between the various paint programs. Switching occassionally (or often).

All adding to the notion that I just shouldn't be worrying about it.

Though I am thinking that I should at least dabble in many art programs from time to time. Just to see if anything connects and to be aware of what's out there. They change with new version releases after all. Heck, ArtRage has changed quite a lot with its releases.

Can I add to this that your current icon is both intriguing and disturbing at the same time?

Er.. meant that for this fur:  thorndraco

Dude, you can use wax crayons on butchers paper, and if you produce something of the quality that you do, it shouldnt matter at all. isnt that the good thing about artwork? You can use mashed up rock paste and make something brilliant, the medium isnt always to do value the end result :3

i you.. i was just telling him this today .. but as i stated to him eailer today..... if anyone stands up and says this is the best way to do art.. all other ways are wrong and starts forcing others to do it that way.. is that really art.. no art is art.. dont judge or put down things just cause of the medium used... if one dose than whats the point you might as well break out the censor bars.. and take down all the dragon porn.. cause thats agiasnt the "normal" art isn't about fitting nicely into some little box.. its about your expression and stuff. I don't know my point i guess as long as it works for you roll with it.. others will either roll or be eaten.. don't let anyone tell u that a certain program is shit.. cause more then likely they aren't you.. if this makes any cents..

either way I say glitter on master and glitter proud

It does make sense. Thanks, pet.

...one of these mornings I'm going to wake up covered in glitter... I know it...

The most beautiful dragon picture I've ever seen was one of Smaug done entierly in crayon. The gold glowed, smoke drifted through shafts of light. It was stunning. My mom has a print of it in her office and has for years.

A tool is only as poor as the artist who wields it, and any artist who must rely on tools rather then his own skill has a long way to go.

You draw good. It doesn't matter if it's with Painter, Art Rage, or crayon. Every set of tools have their own benifits and drawbacks, but in the end it's the artist who makes them worthwhile. If you want to play with digital stuff, go ahead and get Painter. But only do it because you -want- to and are going all giggling and squeeful at the thought of mucking about with pixals. Otherwise, continue working your craft through whatever medium makes you happiest to just draw with. :)

Look at it this way Skant. ArtRage you've already said you love how it does real media. You already do post-work in Photoshop. Painter is just trying to bridge the gap between the two.. that's why it fails. You have a setup that works between ArtRage an Photoshop.. there's no -reason- to go to Painter. You're doing fine, and ArtRage -does- get updated from time to time, so surely there will be better things coming along.

I don't even -do- photoshop post-work yet, an already my art comes out tons better with ArtRage than anything else I've tried. An yes, I've tried a -lot- of art software.

Your missing a major point. Everyone saying 'ArtRage isn't professional'. That's a total load of bull. Why? Not because of the program.. but because professionalism comes from the -artwork- at the end, not what program -made- it. If you get better results in ArtRage, then why the hell would you need to go to a different software package. Because everyone else keeps calling ArtRage a toy? Um.. how many of those people do you wanna bet are just guys working for the Painter development company, trying to get sales by bashing other competing packages?

Anyways, your a dragon. An a rather damn dominant one. You of all critters should -never- be letting other's opinions of something you do change your mind. Your a dragon dammit! You find someone bashing something you like.. stomp 'em or eat 'em an keep doing what you do! I've never once disliked any artwork you've done, an I -certainly- have never found an issue with a program you used to produce the art! Further, ArtRage is a little software package some small group of people wrote, does it's job fairly well, and costs less than Painter. But then, Painter is also made by a too-huge company, with too many mouths to feed. Don't you feel better supporting the little guy, especially when certain things like brushes are done so much better by the 'little guy' in ArtRage? C'mon Skant.. shake off that crap other people are spewing an do what you are enjoying! 'Sides.. with what you have you don't need to spend more money to do what you already do.. isn't that worth something?

Oh, an to add to the pile...

I sadly don't have much left of it, because of a hard drive crash. But there was a time I did a ton of art.. all in pixels only. Pieces that never went more than 32x32 or occasionally 64x64 pixels big, an often smaller than that. I had used a custom program in dos to do the work.. XSPRED.. (mode X SPRite EDitor). Sadly it doesn't work as is under WinXP. Now, other programs like Photoshop and even Flash were able to do the same thing, editing at the pixel level. It's just that none of them ever had the feel of Xspred, or the functions. It let you hit a key an flip back an forth between 2 frames, that both updated right on the main edit window.. let you step through several frames of an animation an show them all on screen in selectable panels. It supported many color options, with a damn handy palette I've never seen another program use.

An it was all some in-house piece of software made by like 3 guys in their spare time. Sure the bigger packages like Photoshop could do it too.. but this program was made from the ground up -just- for this.. an it showed. Art Rage is very similar to that. It doesn't do some of the less-used features that Photoshop and Painter do. But for those few things like simulating what real media does in a real enviroment, Art Rage does it in ways few other programs can touch, because that's what it was designed from the ground-up to do. An since that step is often the most important one, when the media first actually hits the page.. an you've already said you feel comfortable with it.. why not keep it as the first program you use? Once lines are on the page, you may move to other software when -they- are built from the ground-up to do a job which Art Rage is not. But never look down on a piece of software that does one job well, when that one job is also one you do very often.

An guh.. if I don't stop I'm gonna be rambling on about this for pages. :P

It's not a matter of worrying about fitting into the crowd or something. I often do blaze my own trails. My thing is... I choose based on what I think best. I won't specifically choose something just because that's what everyone else uses. Nor will I _not_ choose it because that's what everyone else chooses.

Still, when the crowd is over there, I have to wonder if they're onto something I'm just not seeing.

My concern is that Painter really might be the better program for me if I got over its learning curve first. Am I missing the boat just because I haven't learned it well enough? Painter obviously has a much higher learning curve than ArtRage does. I actually have spent a considerable amount of time tinkering with Painter already. And I'm still not seeing it. It's just not clicking for me yet.

So should I continue to tinker with Painter for a long time on the idea that I just need to learn it better? Or should I make some more pieces with ArtRage? That's my dilemma.

' So should I continue to tinker with Painter for a long time.., Or should I make some more pieces with ArtRage?.. '

You have to ask? Why not just do both? I'd guess by the way you said things that you've had time to do Painter tinkering -and- Art Rage pics.. so just keep doin both. If Painter doesn't click after you feel you know the program inside an out, then it'll be painfully obvious that it's not really workin for ya, so you'll just stick with Art Rage, an still have been drawing with it.. so no real time lost. If however Painter does finally start to click, then you'll get the answer that you just needed to pass the learning curve, an you'll be ready to jump right into it with more art since you kept your art skill up by drawing in Art Rage all that time.

Cheers Mr. Sexy, an hopin that it works out favorably for ya in the end!

You can use a combination of ArtRage and a higher-end program for the other things like brightness of the whole image and stuff. It's not uncommon for professionals to combine different programs in different stages of a project. When I paint icons, sometimes I scan in some line art, adjust the contrast and background transparency in Paint Shop Pro, import it into ArtRage to color it, take it back into Paint Shop Pro to do a gradient fill in the background (I like my gradients smooth), maybe put in a tiny pixel-by-pixel signature if I want, and my icon is finished.

A program is only a tool. Some people dis Poser/DAZ Studio, saying it is not a real 3D program like Maya or 3DS Max. Yet it is capable of producing some awesome imagery in the hands of some people, just like I've seen crap come out of expensive 3D apps.

And this was drawn with MS Paint -- http://diamonster.deviantart.com/ar.....rdraw-17908194

I've never used ArtRage, but I can guess that its probably better than MS paint, which is about the only thing I know how to use X3 So don't feel like a little kid for using it :P