Hi!

I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
preview. Is this easy to do?
You can view said preview on
http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122

Thanks a lot!

Antha

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Antha <sabinedirix@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi!
>
>I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
>of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
>brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
>colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
>color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
>other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
>preview. Is this easy to do?
>You can view said preview on
>http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122
>
>Thanks a lot!
>
>Antha


Your brushes will be the color specified as 'foreground' color on the
Tool Bar. Alternatives will be either different selections with
different colors or you can also be quite creative with the
'Gradient Tool.

Dave

On 8 apr, 14:09, Dave <d...@d.durbs> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Antha <sabinedi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi!
>
> >I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
> >of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
> >brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
> >colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
> >color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
> >other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
> >preview. Is this easy to do?
> >You can view said preview on
> >http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122
>
> >Thanks a lot!
>
> >Antha
>
> Your brushes will be the color specified as 'foreground' color on the
> Tool Bar. Alternatives will be either different selections with
> different colors or you can also be quite creative with the
> 'Gradient Tool.
>
> Dave

Thank you very much! Worked almost as I wanted. Perhaps lack of
experience. Hints and tips on rookie-level still welcome, though!

Antha

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 05:25:06 -0700 (PDT), Antha <sabinedirix@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8 apr, 14:09, Dave <d...@d.durbs> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Antha <sabinedi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi!
>>
>> >I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
>> >of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
>> >brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
>> >colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
>> >color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
>> >other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
>> >preview. Is this easy to do?
>> >You can view said preview on
>> >http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122
>>
>> >Thanks a lot!
>>
>> >Antha
>>
>> Your brushes will be the color specified as 'foreground' color on the
>> Tool Bar. Alternatives will be either different selections with
>> different colors or you can also be quite creative with the
>> 'Gradient Tool.
>>
>> Dave
>
>Thank you very much! Worked almost as I wanted. Perhaps lack of
>experience. Hints and tips on rookie-level still welcome, though!
>
>Antha


You are very welcome:-)
If you go the 'different selections with different colors' way, you
should also experiment with 'feathering' (select/modify/feather)
and also play around with 'Hue/Saturation'
(Image/Adjustment/Hue-Saturation shortcut (Ctrl/U)

Dave

"Antha" <sabinedirix@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b861ed73-aac4-4032-90b9-630041a57fe4@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi!
>
> I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
> of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
> brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
> colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
> color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
> other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
> preview. Is this easy to do?
> You can view said preview on
> http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Antha

you can make the brushes do more than one color for each butterfly
but not color inside the butterflies as the illustration

see this CS screenshot
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch/1554073856/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch/1555427759/

"KatWoman" <spamfree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E_RKj.32479$r76.27789@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> "Antha" <sabinedirix@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b861ed73-aac4-4032-90b9-630041a57fe4@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
>> of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
>> brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
>> colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
>> color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
>> other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
>> preview. Is this easy to do?
>> You can view said preview on
>> http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>>
>> Antha
>
> you can make the brushes do more than one color for each butterfly
> but not color inside the butterflies as the illustration
>
> see this CS screenshot
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch/1554073856/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch/1555427759/
>
you may have to log in to use that link
try this if it doesn't work
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2341/...29f84d84_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/...72372d6f_o.jpg

On 9 apr, 00:07, "KatWoman" <spamf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "KatWoman" <spamf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:E_RKj.32479$r76.27789@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
>
>
>
> > "Antha" <sabinedi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:b861ed73-aac4-4032-90b9-630041a57fe4@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> Hi!
>
> >> I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
> >> of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
> >> brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
> >> colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
> >> color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
> >> other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
> >> preview. Is this easy to do?
> >> You can view said preview on
> >>http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122
>
> >> Thanks a lot!
>
> >> Antha
>
> > you can make the brushes do more than one color for each butterfly
> > but not color inside the butterflies as the illustration
>
> > see this CS screenshot
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch/1554073856/
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/kw-retouch/1555427759/
>
> you may have to log in to use that link
> try this if it doesn't workhttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2341/1555427759_9c29f84d84_o.jpg
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/...72372d6f_o.jpg

The link worked without logging in, thanks!
Color dynamics are indeed a nice effect but it should look as an
inserted photo where I can control the colors being used.
Don't even know if this is possible...
For the time being, I managed it almost with the technique Dave
suggested and maybe I come accross something else in future...
Thanks for all your swift replies!

Antha wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm busy exploring the possibilities of brushes. I downloaded a couple
> of free sets on the net, all very nice. But in the preview, the
> brushes were full color (it are butterflies, wings in all kinds of
> colors) and I only get one color. Even if I set the front- and back
> color differently, I can't manage. I tried with placing one above the
> other and fiddled with blending modes but it still isn't as in the
> preview. Is this easy to do?
> You can view said preview on
> http://myphotoshopbrushes.com/brushes/id/122
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Antha

After checking the preview I think I see your issue. You're expecting
behavior similar to that available from PSP tubes, or Corel Photo-Paint
ImageSprays, or PhotoImpact objects for use with the Object Clone tool, or
RealDRAW nozzles. That is to say, multiple colors within the brush itself.
That's not the way that PS brushes work, AFAIK. Each brush is essentially a
monochrome shape. You will note that her brush palette image on that same
page shows the butterflies (and everything else) as monochrome images.

You can use dynamics, scattering, gradients, etc. to cause each individual
expression of the brush as it is moved to differ from the next, but to my
knowledge there is no way to create multi-color brushes which express those
colors when used (in PS, the foreground and background colors have control),
or even show them in the brush palette.

Here is an example of an image I created using Corel Photo-Paint ImageSprays
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/2...f424e4df_o.jpg. As you can
see, the multiple individual images making up each spray reatin their
coloration as the brush is moved. Dynamics may added similarly to Photoshop.
Here
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/cor...ppsprays01.htm
you may find a selection of free Image Lists (ImageSpray components) in
various categories which can be used in Photo-Paint. This capability has
existed at least since Corel version 7 (they're on v.14 or so, now, or would
be if they hadn't gone "X" crazy). That same site also offers PSP tubes and
PI objects.

Ironically, I can download from your source the colored example containing
those butterflies, use paths to extract them into separate images, and
create a Corel ImageSpray with them which would work in exactly the way that
you wish. Frankly, I don't understand why we have reached PS10 and PS still
doesn't have an equivalent tool. At least four of their competitors have
demonstrated that it's really not that bloody difficult to implement.

prowler



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:32:55 -0400, "prowler"
>Frankly, I don't understand why we have reached PS10 and PS still
>doesn't have an equivalent tool. At least four of their competitors have
>demonstrated that it's really not that bloody difficult to implement.
>
>prowler
>

Maybe we should keep in mind that PS (despite facilities like said
brushes) is still basically a Photo Editor and does not really have
competitors. Photoshop can never be in the same league as
Corel Painter concerning painting, but PS is not a painting nor a
drawing program. Photoshop is a photo editor without competitors.

Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:32:55 -0400, "prowler"
>> Frankly, I don't understand why we have reached PS10 and PS still
>> doesn't have an equivalent tool. At least four of their competitors
>> have demonstrated that it's really not that bloody difficult to
>> implement.
>>
>> prowler
>>
>
> Maybe we should keep in mind that PS (despite facilities like said
> brushes) is still basically a Photo Editor and does not really have
> competitors.

OK, here I'll have to give one/take one (kinda like getting on I-75 in
Atlanta). Granted, PS has no real serious competition as a photo editor.
However, Adobe long ago realized that the other players in the graphics
editing field (which is probably the phrase I should have used rather than
"competition") were going to steal a march on them, and conveivably offer
real competition that would threaten their undisputed leadership in the
field, if they didn't add features that the others offered that were not,
strictly speaking, photo editing capabilities.

The premier example, of course, is text editing. In an application designed
specifically and principally as a photo editor there is neither need nor
expectation that text even be considered. If your objective is to edit and,
theoretically, improve upon photographic images, there is no requirement
that text be part of the equation. Being an old fart, I can recall when PS
didn't even have in-place text editing. IIRC, version 5 or 5.5 still invoked
a text-editing dialog when the text tool was chosen. Version 6 was the first
in which it was possible to edit text in place, and even then the text
editing capabilities were pretty lame compared to the compe... er, the other
players in the field. And ever since then, it seems that each new version
has strengthened PS's capability in this regard.

It doesn't take too much perusal of the PS interface to discover a great
many capabilities, besides the brushes you acknowledge and the text I
mentioned, which have nothing to do with the basic function of editing a
photograph (several of the in-built filter set come to mind), but which are
there because of their contribution to the objective of creative graphics
editing, whether based upon an original photograph or made up whole cloth in
the creator's mind and talent.

I submit that Photoshop is, and has been for some time, a creative tool
which has as one of it many capabilities the premier capacity for
photographic editing among those which compete with it on that particular
field. As such, I believe that it is not unreasonable to ask that the
particular creative tool under discussion be part of its repertoire, whether
they call it tubes, image lists, nozzles, objects, or whatever name their
marketing people come up with.

Photoshop can never be in the same league as
> Corel Painter concerning painting,

No doubt, and that might be germane if I had mentioned Corel Painter.
However, I did not. I spoke of Corel Photo-Paint, which is and has been a
direct competitor, albeit with less than stellar success, to Photoshop as a
photo editor. Painter is a purported natural media creative graphics
application, and to my knowledge was never intended as a direct competitor
to products such as either Photoshop or Photo-Paint.

but PS is not a painting nor a
> drawing program. Photoshop is a photo editor without competitors.

As I said, give one/take one. I will readily grant that, with respect to
photo editing, Photoshop has no real competition. However, given its strong
(and ever growing) vector capabilities, its continued development of
text-handling capacity, and the many features which it offers that have
nothing to do with photo editing per se (animation, anyone?), I would argue
that it is far more than simply a photo editor; it is a tremendously
flexible creative tool, and that to omit this really rather simple to
implement tool from its repertoire weakens its otherwise unchallengable
position at the top of the heap.

Let me put it this way. Why should I have to save an image from PS, bring it
into another application to use this tool (I have Photo-Paint, Paint Shop
Pro, and RealDRAW [among many others], all of which offer this capacity and
support layers), and then bring it back into PS to finish, if that should
turn out to be required? Consider the flexibility offered were such a tool
to be offered and coupled with the animation capabilities currently
available and likely to be developed as a result of the Macromedia (Flash)
purchase. C'mon, Adobe. Get off the damned dime and give us the option for
full-color dynamic brushes and/or image lists/tubes/nozzles/objects,
what-the-hell-ever-you-want-to-call-it, OK?

prowler



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"prowler" <prowler@zoomtown.com> wrote in message
news:1207801279_135214@news.usenet.com...
> Dave wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:32:55 -0400, "prowler"
>>> Frankly, I don't understand why we have reached PS10 and PS still
>>> doesn't have an equivalent tool. At least four of their competitors
>>> have demonstrated that it's really not that bloody difficult to
>>> implement.
>>>
>>> prowler
>>>
>>
>> Maybe we should keep in mind that PS (despite facilities like said
>> brushes) is still basically a Photo Editor and does not really have
>> competitors.
>
> OK, here I'll have to give one/take one (kinda like getting on I-75 in
> Atlanta). Granted, PS has no real serious competition as a photo editor.
> However, Adobe long ago realized that the other players in the graphics
> editing field (which is probably the phrase I should have used rather than
> "competition") were going to steal a march on them, and conveivably offer
> real competition that would threaten their undisputed leadership in the
> field, if they didn't add features that the others offered that were not,
> strictly speaking, photo editing capabilities.
>
> The premier example, of course, is text editing. In an application
> designed specifically and principally as a photo editor there is neither
> need nor expectation that text even be considered. If your objective is to
> edit and, theoretically, improve upon photographic images, there is no
> requirement that text be part of the equation. Being an old fart, I can
> recall when PS didn't even have in-place text editing. IIRC, version 5 or
> 5.5 still invoked a text-editing dialog when the text tool was chosen.
> Version 6 was the first in which it was possible to edit text in place,
> and even then the text editing capabilities were pretty lame compared to
> the compe... er, the other players in the field. And ever since then, it
> seems that each new version has strengthened PS's capability in this
> regard.
>
> It doesn't take too much perusal of the PS interface to discover a great
> many capabilities, besides the brushes you acknowledge and the text I
> mentioned, which have nothing to do with the basic function of editing a
> photograph (several of the in-built filter set come to mind), but which
> are there because of their contribution to the objective of creative
> graphics editing, whether based upon an original photograph or made up
> whole cloth in the creator's mind and talent.
>
> I submit that Photoshop is, and has been for some time, a creative tool
> which has as one of it many capabilities the premier capacity for
> photographic editing among those which compete with it on that particular
> field. As such, I believe that it is not unreasonable to ask that the
> particular creative tool under discussion be part of its repertoire,
> whether they call it tubes, image lists, nozzles, objects, or whatever
> name their marketing people come up with.
>
> Photoshop can never be in the same league as
>> Corel Painter concerning painting,
>
> No doubt, and that might be germane if I had mentioned Corel Painter.
> However, I did not. I spoke of Corel Photo-Paint, which is and has been a
> direct competitor, albeit with less than stellar success, to Photoshop as
> a photo editor. Painter is a purported natural media creative graphics
> application, and to my knowledge was never intended as a direct competitor
> to products such as either Photoshop or Photo-Paint.
>
> but PS is not a painting nor a
>> drawing program. Photoshop is a photo editor without competitors.
>
> As I said, give one/take one. I will readily grant that, with respect to
> photo editing, Photoshop has no real competition. However, given its
> strong (and ever growing) vector capabilities, its continued development
> of text-handling capacity, and the many features which it offers that have
> nothing to do with photo editing per se (animation, anyone?), I would
> argue that it is far more than simply a photo editor; it is a tremendously
> flexible creative tool, and that to omit this really rather simple to
> implement tool from its repertoire weakens its otherwise unchallengable
> position at the top of the heap.
>
> Let me put it this way. Why should I have to save an image from PS, bring
> it into another application to use this tool (I have Photo-Paint, Paint
> Shop Pro, and RealDRAW [among many others], all of which offer this
> capacity and support layers), and then bring it back into PS to finish, if
> that should turn out to be required? Consider the flexibility offered were
> such a tool to be offered and coupled with the animation capabilities
> currently available and likely to be developed as a result of the
> Macromedia (Flash) purchase. C'mon, Adobe. Get off the damned dime and
> give us the option for full-color dynamic brushes and/or image
> lists/tubes/nozzles/objects, what-the-hell-ever-you-want-to-call-it, OK?
>

doesn't that option come with ILLUSTRATOR??

perhaps one day soon PS and Illy will merge as one program



> prowler
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

KatWoman wrote:
> "prowler" <prowler@zoomtown.com> wrote in message
> news:1207801279_135214@news.usenet.com...
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:32:55 -0400, "prowler"
>>>> Frankly, I don't understand why we have reached PS10 and PS still
>>>> doesn't have an equivalent tool. At least four of their competitors
>>>> have demonstrated that it's really not that bloody difficult to
>>>> implement.
>>>>
>>>> prowler
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we should keep in mind that PS (despite facilities like said
>>> brushes) is still basically a Photo Editor and does not really have
>>> competitors.
>>
>> OK, here I'll have to give one/take one (kinda like getting on I-75
>> in Atlanta). Granted, PS has no real serious competition as a photo
>> editor. However, Adobe long ago realized that the other players in
>> the graphics editing field (which is probably the phrase I should
>> have used rather than "competition") were going to steal a march on
>> them, and conveivably offer real competition that would threaten
>> their undisputed leadership in the field, if they didn't add
>> features that the others offered that were not, strictly speaking,
>> photo editing capabilities. The premier example, of course, is text
>> editing. In an application
>> designed specifically and principally as a photo editor there is
>> neither need nor expectation that text even be considered. If your
>> objective is to edit and, theoretically, improve upon photographic
>> images, there is no requirement that text be part of the equation.
>> Being an old fart, I can recall when PS didn't even have in-place
>> text editing. IIRC, version 5 or 5.5 still invoked a text-editing dialog
>> when the text tool was
>> chosen. Version 6 was the first in which it was possible to edit
>> text in place, and even then the text editing capabilities were
>> pretty lame compared to the compe... er, the other players in the
>> field. And ever since then, it seems that each new version has
>> strengthened PS's capability in this regard.
>>
>> It doesn't take too much perusal of the PS interface to discover a
>> great many capabilities, besides the brushes you acknowledge and the
>> text I mentioned, which have nothing to do with the basic function
>> of editing a photograph (several of the in-built filter set come to
>> mind), but which are there because of their contribution to the
>> objective of creative graphics editing, whether based upon an
>> original photograph or made up whole cloth in the creator's mind and
>> talent. I submit that Photoshop is, and has been for some time, a
>> creative
>> tool which has as one of it many capabilities the premier capacity
>> for photographic editing among those which compete with it on that
>> particular field. As such, I believe that it is not unreasonable to
>> ask that the particular creative tool under discussion be part of
>> its repertoire, whether they call it tubes, image lists, nozzles,
>> objects, or whatever name their marketing people come up with.
>>
>> Photoshop can never be in the same league as
>>> Corel Painter concerning painting,
>>
>> No doubt, and that might be germane if I had mentioned Corel Painter.
>> However, I did not. I spoke of Corel Photo-Paint, which is and has
>> been a direct competitor, albeit with less than stellar success, to
>> Photoshop as a photo editor. Painter is a purported natural media
>> creative graphics application, and to my knowledge was never
>> intended as a direct competitor to products such as either Photoshop
>> or Photo-Paint. but PS is not a painting nor a
>>> drawing program. Photoshop is a photo editor without competitors.
>>
>> As I said, give one/take one. I will readily grant that, with
>> respect to photo editing, Photoshop has no real competition.
>> However, given its strong (and ever growing) vector capabilities,
>> its continued development of text-handling capacity, and the many
>> features which it offers that have nothing to do with photo editing
>> per se (animation, anyone?), I would argue that it is far more than
>> simply a photo editor; it is a tremendously flexible creative tool,
>> and that to omit this really rather simple to implement tool from
>> its repertoire weakens its otherwise unchallengable position at the
>> top of the heap. Let me put it this way. Why should I have to save an
>> image from PS,
>> bring it into another application to use this tool (I have
>> Photo-Paint, Paint Shop Pro, and RealDRAW [among many others], all
>> of which offer this capacity and support layers), and then bring it
>> back into PS to finish, if that should turn out to be required?
>> Consider the flexibility offered were such a tool to be offered and
>> coupled with the animation capabilities currently available and
>> likely to be developed as a result of the Macromedia (Flash)
>> purchase. C'mon, Adobe. Get off the damned dime and give us the
>> option for full-color dynamic brushes and/or image
>> lists/tubes/nozzles/objects, what-the-hell-ever-you-want-to-call-it,
>> OK?
>
> doesn't that option come with ILLUSTRATOR??

Does it? No shyte? I had no idea. I quit futzing with Illustrator with
version 9.0.1, and wasn't aware that the capability existed in Illy (did it,
back then?).

> perhaps one day soon PS and Illy will merge as one program

Oh, I so hope not. Well, perhaps that's a tad unfair, since my only
experience with Illy was with v.9 (those who have used it know what I mean).
I've been using what I consider to be a far superior vector editor, Xara
Xtreme (along with Serif's DrawPlus X2, which has particular strengths in
CAD-type illustrations and offers native projection drawing and some
interesting gradient options). Well, actually, first Corel Xara, then Xara
X1, now Xara Xtreme.

Hmm, come to think of it, that would be an interesting contest, given the
bitmap capabilities available in XX4, which just came out. We would have
Photoshop/Illy, with a primary strength in raster editing, and Xara Xtreme,
with a primary focus on vector editing, but with both capable of dealing
with seamless mixed vector/raster editing. Interesting...

prowler




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com