Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Plays with Gimp
#41
Rich, whatever I do is only for the screen, I never print images, I have many images collected, either mine or simply downloaded, and I test and apply modifications only to store those versions on my folders (and look again at them from time to time).
Critics are always well accepted, hence thanks for your contribution.
Maybe -once you know that I do not plan to print- you could add comments to evaluate how the "manipulated" images can be seen by you or other people: as "nice" or "ugly" or "don't care". I'm interested in your opinion, if you like, even if -from your "historical" posts, I see you have more a "technical" eye than an "artistic" one. But, who knows...
Reply
#42
Quote:..I see you have more a "technical" eye than an "artistic" one...

yes, just a rough old stick-n-stones (civil) engineer. I suspect that I am in with a majority of forum users in that, if I have no hard views on any subject, artistic or otherwise, I do not post anything.

Hopefully starting such a debate will get you some comments.
Reply
#43
I hope the same, Rich.
In fact, what is missing in Gimp forums in the majority of the cases, is to test whether Gimp can be used to "manipulate" photos and produce nice or ugly or useless effects.
IMHO if Photoshop is still THE software for managing photos (in spite of the fact that it costs, and it costs a lot) is just because since the beginning Gimp has been used for other "activities": creating texts, creating textures, but very seldom to really "manipulate" photos.
Reply
#44
Just another way of transforming a photo to look as a painting.
Nice? Ugly? Time lost?
Up to you. Comments welcome.
   
Reply
#45
(02-04-2019, 07:41 AM)dinasset Wrote: Just another way of transforming a photo to look as a painting.
Nice? Ugly? Time lost?
Up to you. Comments welcome.

Dinasset, I like this one very much, You know my eye isn't an erudite one, I judge by intuition and I like it because it is so pleasant to see, perfect colours and the result is really beautiful. Thanks for sharing it.  Smile
Reply
#46
Looking at your outcomes on GC, everyone can say you have an "artistic" eye; hence, thanks you for your positive evaluation.
Reply
#47
Realizing this is a playpen type of project, I see no bad outcomes possible, only learning opportunities. With that in mind, I like this picture a lot, but the flow of the simulated brush strokes looks interesting, but not look the least bit credible. It looks like you're trying for random, but got only clustered random. Still, I have no clue how you did this, so hats off to you. Seems like I joined a discussion maybe years into a long thread about plug-ins. I'm still working on basics, but looking ahead to learning plug-ins.
Reply
#48
"the flow of the simulated brush strokes looks interesting, but not look the least bit credible"
You are perfectly right.
Strokes do not follow the "drawing" main lines, they are randomly placed.
The goal is to simulate strokes but not "classical" strokes which reinforce/create the contours, just "free" strokes.
As long as the result could be considered "nice" I'm happy.
Thanks for your evaluation. 
Reply
#49
Playing with Zach Stark's filters (contour, contour-map).
   
Reply
#50
I see good potential for this filter. Can we control the color of the contour lines?
Reply


Forum Jump: