Photographic features and other non-paint features)

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Thursday 11 March 2010, LukasT.dev at gmail.com wrote:
> > ...though creating a painting-like image from a photograph is not part of
> > our vision.
> 
> I disagree here. Photograph is very nice source of color. Digital painting
> has problem called "put-this-color-here" which is very slow in the
> workflow. It is better for digital painter to put some image in the layer
> and "steal" the whole areas from the image.
> 
> Some paintops already work like this e.g. sumi has "ink soak", spray and
> grid has "sample input color". But so far it is limited to one layer.
> 
> This feature (have underlaying source , e.g. photography) is part of
> digital painting workflow. Many articles regarding the painting just
> proves this.

There is a gray area, but to me the difference is pretty clear: when I look at 
tutorials in Photoshop Creative that create a "cezanne" by smudge/cloning a 
photo of a bowl of fruit, then I know that that is not what Krita is for. 
Taking a portrait photo, applying a filter and then touching up the edges to 
get a "painted" portrait is not what Krita is for. If there is more hand work 
involved, we get into a gray area. Assembling a base layer by combining bits 
of various photographs, applying a filter to sort of unifying them and using 
that as a base for painting a landscape or cityscape -- that is matte painting 
and that is what Krita definitely _is_ for.

> But maybe you thought "creating masterpiece with one click in some filter"
> is not part of our vision?

That definitely isn't part of our vision :-)

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org