When it comes down to it, most renders look, well... rendered.

There are millions of tutorials on using filters and actions, that will create a certain painted look, but it seems that the truly painted look only comes from the real thing.

I bought the QuantumScapes and QuantumDreams books of Stephan Martiniere's work recently, and yesterday got Exodyssey, artwork from Steambot Studios.

The Exodyssey book features many pieces described as 'overpainted on 3D', and I'm wondering if this offers a shortcut to getting a painted look.

Since I cannot paint or draw much in the real world, is there a good way to get started with overpainting that will skip the "drawn by a five year old" phase that would otherwise afflict my work.

I have a small WACOM tablet and Photoshop CS2.

Are you talking about the painted look meaning it looks hand painted like it originated from a real painting?

Check my answer to my own previous post, "Watercolour paint effect - once again".

That should at least get you started.

These pictures by Martiniere caught my eye:

http://www.martiniere.com/imagepages/variablestar.htm

and particularly this one:

http://www.martiniere.com/imagepages/shipandsea.htm

So far, actions and filters don't really seem to capture that look, so I'm speculating that it's only the human element, perhaps over-painting a render, that will take it further.

I'm wondering what I might do to add that human element, but without making an average render look like junk because I can't paint.

One thing you can do is try to render things separately so in Photoshop you can run different filters and use different settings on each element. You can also try running the same filter with different settings on two copies of the same layer and erase some parts of the top layer to get a more natural and varied look to the image. Start with two elements from those images you showed us and try to replicate them. Maybe the background and one foreground object.

Thanks LukeA, I will give that a try.

 try taking a copy of a layer and use the smudge tool with your stylus to push the pixels around like digital paint. Experiment with the "strength" setting and the layer opacity.

another thing to do is to use the clone tool on a blank layer (of course you need to select the target from a layer with pixels on them... but switch to your blank layer to "clone to"). this way you can use the layer color mode too to can a desired effect...

i'll try to make a quick example

retrocity

I read in one of my magazines [ImagineFX is awesome imo] about creating a separate layer, using a grunge brush to fill the layer and set it over the image as an overlay I think and it can give a painted texture effect.

I've been trying to find a similiar way of creating something in Vue or Poser etc and giving it a painted look, kind of take the edge off the rendered image.

One thing I have found out that lights play a big part on render outcomes, of course. There is a tut on how to render in Poser that makes the result come out like a 2d cartoon effect, perhaps something like that but not to that extreme might help. I haven't played with that idea, but if the cartoon effect can be done, something in between might be as well.  Either way there will need to be some postwork done.

Going back to the ImagineFX magazine, they have been running a series on brushes for PS and explaining on what they're used for in the artwork, like for skin or cloth etc, and they also mention what other things can be done with that one type of brush, like for grass or stone work. I'm wanting to take the time to take an image and paint over it and merge the two together and see how that works.

Take a look at their web site and see what you can pick up there, I'm pretty certain there is a download section there.

But that's my 2 pennies worth, I'm just a PS noob myself but I've found lots of neat ideas out of that magazine. It used to cater to all forms of art making but over the last year it seems to be focusing more on hand painted works in PS or Painter. But still full of good tips.

Retrocity and Nosiferret,

Thank you both; these are very useful suggestions.

Anyway, use tyhe 3D base render as a guide - light the general "scene" properly and you might even wanna leave textures out of it if you wanna just play and have fun with where you might end up.

Just like everything else, practice practice practice!

I recently did one myself and I think I'm just gonna keep doing this technique and experimenting and seeing where it takes me.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1866866

And attached is the original render out from C4D.

The background general concrete wall is a photo resized and masked, set to Overlay Mode. The rest is versions of painting on layers set to Overlay, Soft Light, Multiply, use of masked Adjustment Layers, etc. Painting in a variety of different methods to get all the texture, grime, highlights and shadows, etc.

I actually first got the idea from Rapheal Lacoste - as he uses this technique extensively, but he goes further and adds characters and stuff not in the render at all because, frankly, he's amazing at it. It never occurred to me to use a base render as a starting ground for a complete painting - now I"m just practising to be able to paint other stuff as well...

We'll see how that goes...

Hope this helps-
-Lew ;-)

LukeA - BTW - just realized who you were - I have a copy of 3D Game Textures (1st Ed) and it's fantastic! Just letting you know - love the book!

-Lew

LOL that's my dad, I am 14.

No kidding - LOL!
Well tell your dad (Luke Ahearn SR) the book is great!
-Lew ;-)

Sorry I am an evil clown - it's really me.

Glad you liked the book.

"Will the REAL Luke Ahearn please stand up...?"
I was thinking your models looked very professional for a 14 year old (checked out your store)!

-Lew ;-)

 Mark,
I'm weighing in on this subject a bit late but my opinion is the prospects look grim. As a painter from way back, TD's have been trying to push those filter scripts on me for years to try and get that painterly look. The major problem with it is it treats everything the same and so important details get more processing than they should. 

Separating the layers, as mentioned above, can help. Smudging everything with a brush is tedious and in the end will require some painterly skills as everything shouldn't be smudgy.

Martiniere, while I don't know his process, I do know there are people who can paint that kind of technical detail from scratch. I must admit while I started off there I find it easier to let the 3D program figure out all those shadows and reflections for me. 

While he may go very painterly with background and foreground details his focus remains sharp on panels and gizmos, appropriately. 

For me, I've been trying to find some way to drag my 3D illustrations back into the paint world but I've never been satisfied with any of it. It always ends up where I'm having to work over every inch by hand which might return some warmth to the image but puts a serious dent in my schedule. 

Whichever way you finally decide to go, I hope you choose to keep some of the details sharp. 

decibel,

"trying .. for years to try and get that painterly look"
it treats everything the same and so important details get more processing than they should"

IMO you see problems where none exists .
You completly disregard the last and  most important thing.

When you are done with your carefully painterly version, done by a COMBINATION of scripts and manual hands on, working on seperate layers at a time, then you place you painterly version over the orginal and mask it. Then by alternating with the black and white brush you make the details sharp where they should be sharp.

Edit: To make an image painterly doesn't take more than a day or two. Compare that to the months it took for some of the old painters to finish a painting..

 vintorix,

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. 

A couple of things I had to consider before coming up with my opinion:

In most cases, the script solution was being sought because I was dealing with 30 fps, and a day or two per frame in that case was out of the question. That filtered look might work for some people, depending on the context. For that human touch the filter-solution wasn't acceptable and the compromise was hand rotoscoping on 3's. It lowers the motion resolution but looks more hand drawn because it is.

Currently, as comics or storyboards, I don't have to concern myself with that kind of motion but still have a significant number of frames to push through. Simplifying the style would help that a lot. But then I'm also using 3D as a way of getting all the rich details of well defined texture maps and don't want to lose the work there. Clearly, if I'm after a more graphic appearance it will require some style choices that will be a balance of processes. 

Back to Mark's initial comment, making a 3D image painterly, you have to consider whose style are we talking about? Rembrandt or Wyeth, et al. 

If we are talking animation - then we are on a completly different planet. Then we are discussining completly different things!

I know  that is is a lot of work and research going on trying to automate conversion of 3D to non-photographic style. Maybe some solution is just around the corner!

 True, and I mention the animation only as historically where this search started for me.
To stay in context with Mark's original question, I think you have to consider what each person's goals are. 

For Mark, and many of us, the goal is to remove the antiseptic sting of a clean 3D render. If the goal is to make a computer painting that looks like an oil painting or watercolor there are many programs and techniques for getting there. And as you mentioned above, not surprisingly, they require painting!  : )

Mark's request was for the technique that doesn't require painting. My response is, those popular photoshop actions often step on your rendered information doing more damage than good. But I'm being general and specifically there are all kinds of post tricks one can do to minimize the 3D curse that don't require turning the whole image into a Rembrandt or Van Gogh. 

And don't get me wrong, doing the latter can be cool too. Like I said it depends on your goal. 

Mine specifically, and how I got interested in this thread, is dealing with sequential story panels and creating a cohesive style that I can apply to 3D images so that I can feel free to paint in other elements and not worry about the two worlds clashing. I do a lot of post already adding effects that are too time consuming to do in 3D. Time is always an issue. And as such I guess I should stop rambling.

It's all very case specific and goal dependent. 

cheers

deci6el, "(what) one can do to minimize the 3D curse"

:)))

You express yourself very eloquently!

But you are entiredly right. I doesn't have to look like water or oilpaintings.  it doesn't have to be painterly at all! For example if it was like a photography with all the little uneventness and blemishes objects have in reality that would do very nicely. But for that you also need manual skills automatics just don't do the job. At least not as good as an human can do!. No matter how you turn, your buttom is still back.

"For Mark, and many of us, the goal is to remove the antiseptic sting of a clean 3D render. If the goal is to make a computer painting that looks like an oil painting or watercolor there are many programs and techniques for getting there. And as you mentioned above, not surprisingly, they require painting!  : )"

I don't necessarily agree. Much of removing that clean, antiseptic render look from 3D is choosing the right textures. You won't find too many clean renders in my art. Several years ago I was taught a principle called level of detail by a professional CG guy. No, that doesn't mean how much detail you put in. In means nothing in life is clean. It means breaking up specularity, showing the dirt and grime and wear of life.

As well, having lived in Japan back in the 70s, I became a believer in a principle called Sabi. There are actually three principles, wabi, sabi and suki, but I concentrate mostly on sabi, which is Beauty that treasures the passage of time, echoing the original meaning of the word: rust or patina. Objects or constructions created from organic materials and used in daily life are of course beautiful when they are brand new. But sabi describes the new and different phases of beauty that evolve in the course of their use and enjoyment, and the conviction that the aesthetic values of things is not diminished by time, but enhanced. The wear and tear of daily use, lovingly repaired and attended to, does not detract, but adds new beauty and aesthetic depth. Indeed, sabi is at its ultimate when age and wear bring a new thing to the very threshold of its demise. Appreciation of sabi confirms the natural cycle of organic life – that what is created from the earth finally returns to the earth and that nothing is ever complete. Sabi is true to the natural cycle of birth and rebirth.

Using sabi and level of detail helps remove the clean from 3D.

I've also seen many 4D renders by artists far more advanced than I, in which they have used painted textures to create painterly renders which range from cartoon like simplicity all the way to old masters funn paint. I've seen re4nders that are basically copies of old master painting where it's hard to tell the difference. And most of these were not estensivey post worked.

Painterly renders can be done in 3D. It takes high skill in texturing, modeling, lighting, composition, all the skills we're all working to develop anyway. No, I haven't done it. My modeling and lighting skills aren't there yet. Plus, I'm an illustrator, so I do what I do the way i do it. Though i admit to wishing I had the knowledge and skill to create cartoon like renders. But a lot of that is in the modeling and I haven't grasped the concept yet.

As far as using scripts or filters in post work, I do. But I gernerally use several layers, several different filters, manipulation and various types of blending. If you look at my series of fairy paintings, you can see I do create painting type illustrations, but they all have my really weird over staurated and bright colored look to them. Done with multiple filters and layers and blending and manipulation. A hell of a lot of work, in other words.

But don't blame 3D for non painterly renders. It can do the job, but only if you have the patience and skills to do the work.

I would also suggest that in order to learn more about painterly techniques, study matte painting a bit. Those folks are amazing at what they do.

bonestructure,

Many thanks for your long post from one who obviously is a professional! Your Primrose Sunrise for example is pure magic, true art. In that way you proved your own point! But if you think that you save any time that way think again! To find the right texture and go though all the intricacies of UV mapping and bump/displacement/specularity/refractions etc takes more time than postwork do!..It might be appropriate for film and animations but for 3D stills, 2D artwork created with 3D (like your Primrose) or matte painting it is certainly not the solution if you want to save time...:)

Well, I'm rarely in a position where I need to save time. I enjoy the work. Being disabled and having a frankly totally miserable life, it's that work that gets me out of bed and moving in the morning. Yes, it takes a lot of time, but people I do work for understand that they need to give me sufficient lead time to do my thing.

"having a frankly totally miserable life,"

If you say so. But still, you are good at what you do, you love to do it and you have customers. That is something..

Well, it's a passion for me. I have known, from the earliest age, that I would be a writer and artist. I have never had any other ambitions. And I have been fortunate and blessed enough to reach many of my goals and be able to set new ones even higher. I've had books published, and will more. I've had art published. I've had movies made. I've done CD covers and DVD covers. I'm on my 5th book cover in the last 3 months. I love what I do. I'm always looking to do more, and to challenge myself to do better work. Because of disabilities, I'm not able to do very much physically, but it's important to me to keep challenging myself in the things I am able to do. That's what life is, constantly challenging yourself, moving forward, getting better. I'm handicapped by a really crappy computer I got ripped off on, but I do the best I can with what I have and dream about what I could do with genuinely good equipment. I was thrilled last month to find my blindness is caused by cataracts, and one of my first thoughts was hey, that can be fixed, and how much better could I do once it's fixed. Time is not a concern for me. Being as good as I can be is what I want, and that means constantly striving to be better. I may not have much, but I believe in making the most of what I do have and working to get better equipment and better skills.

bonestructure,

Either you got a life or you don't got a life. As long as you can function in society, work and earn money you got a life, no matter how it is. But if you loose that, then you are in trouble. And for having a hard time, almost all real art is created by people who suffer; it is the very nutrient that makes the flower grow. It is not difficult to see looking at your gallery that here is one who have the fire, someone who wants deeply and strong to be an artist. Not like the majority who 'play’, for fun. Have you not seen Michelangelo's David? According to the art historian Kenneth Clark it represents 'Rejection of Convenience'. To be immortal in history, that is the goal. Happiness is not enough!

 bonestructure,

I'm not sure we disagree. As mentioned above, my stand is that post-filters or hand-smudging edges and details isn't doing you any favors if you have spent vast amounts of time making detailed textures. But dirty textures isn't the whole battle. 
You mentioned lighting and level of detail, all very good points. I would add that atmosphere is also important. Every picture doesn't need to be wrapped in fog or haze but there does need to be some attention paid to air quality. Part of that sting is the feeling that all these pristine sharp edge objects are in a vacuum. And getting rid of that can employ any of those attributes mentioned above and more. The vignetting you did on Damnations is a simple technique but does a lot to warm up the picture and remove that sting I'm pointing to. DOF is another simple trick. 

BTW, a little OT,

I had the cataract surgery done on both eyes a few years ago. It worked really well for me, I've been very satisfied. I hope you are able to get it done as you can imagine it makes a world of difference. 

cheers

"The vignetting you did on Damnations is a simple technique but does a lot to warm up the picture and remove that sting I'm pointing to."

Actually, not that simple. It's not done in post. It was done with the lighting. Took a while to get it right, and aligned right,, but once I'd built the wall and floor and window, the lighting was created, and everything else was modeled and composed to fit into that light. So rather than vignetting in post, the light was a major part off the complete compositioning of the image. I had to be able to see that reduced light area as i worked to get everything where I wanted it.

Attached Link: Mikeall gallery

On-topic:

Check out Mikeall in context to this thread.

His context is quite specific as he is recreating mid-20th Century pulp covers. So, not only does his aim cover a painterly effect he is also layering in print effects, and "real world" distressing. Sometimes I'm aware of how he got there but usually its a fun ride through an alternate past.

My distinction being, his clarity of choice as dictated by his context and my disatisfaction because I am struggling to keep the rendered details and yet add in painted elements. It just puts more pressure on my painting abilities. 

Yeah, he does some nice work. Oddly enough, my current book cover illustration job is basically a pulpzine type cover. Then I have to do a crapload of basic illustrations for a major Lovecraft convention. BIG job. Painful lol. And I'll have to paint most of those.

All i can tell you is, practice. If you don't have a Wacom tablet, get one. I wish i could. But it will make the painting process amazingly more effective and easier to do.

 Oh, I get all the practice I can stand, and then some. ; ) 
Right, you mentioned you don't have a Wacom above. I don't know how you exist without one. I've been using tablets since '83 when the menu was actually printed on the surface of the tablet and the pen weighed about 10 ounces and got really hot after an hour of painting. There's my geezer story du jour.

It's good you've got work. 

Just stumbled upon this thread. Some cool thoughts. Thanks for posting and sharing...

Thanks, Wow, I was so young back then. Since then there are so many advancements in algorithmic filtering solutions, Prisma is enjoying a lot of attention these days. But it still gets down to being able to make choices about your image rather than letting it get fed through a fancy filter no matter how delicious it might be.

Prisma? That's a Photoshop plugin?

I'm guessing you've googled it by now but if not, see prism-ai.com

free app that iirc uses googles deep dream algorithm to filter photos. Last time I heard there were caveats like; it works by uploading the image to google where it gets processed and it gets a "prisma" watermark. Now, all that may have changed since I last looked. I would say "Buyer Beware" but its free.

That said may not be a workable solution for the work being described originally in this thread. I mentioned it only 'cause it looks cool.