Corel Procreate Painter

[wyrdlyng]

I've heard bits and pieces about this piece of software but never anything solid. Since I'm an art student now I can qualify to pick this software up at a significant discount but it's still not cheap. I was wondering if anyone's used this software or if anyone has any comments about it. It seems cool in premise (replicate multiple forms of media with a computer and a tablet) but the price, even after discount, is still pretty high.

Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Drew Baker]

I found links to trial versions of Painter 7 for both Windows and Mac at http://www.downseek.com/download/22210.asp -- the links point to Corel's ftp server so I believe they're legit, despite not being able to find any mention of them on Corel's site.  Fair warning: the windows file is 103 MB.

I'm afraid I don't have any real experience with Painter; I do my digital painting in Photoshop 6 and found Painter 6 just too different to be worth the effort and cost of transitioning.  Some of the new features of 7 sound good so I'll give the new demo a shot (but I'll also look into Photoshop 7 with its new brush engine).

You can find some Painter tutorials and the like at http://www.pixelalley.com/pixelalley-sections-pages.html -- from my slight contact with the program and its community I've heard good things about the page's author.


--Drew

[Trevis Martin]

I have painter verstion 6 from when it still belonged to Metacreations, before Corel bought it.  Its a favorite of mine that I've used quite a bit. I got it when I was in the middle of my MFA in painting and was curious as to how it felt and performed as opposed to actual paint.

It won't replace traditional media of course :)  but, especially if you have a good tablet, its quite interesting to use.  The effects that you get onscreen are much closer to real life media effects, stroke and blending wise, than you will get in Photoshop (at least Photoshop 6.)  I also find the blending by using the plain water blender in painter much better than any similar tools in photoshop.   I've done a few pictures, studies and portraits mostly, and have enjoyed it even though it feels strange at first.

I think it would be great for illustration work as you wouldn't have to scan the original media (or have it scanned.)

regards

Trevis

[wyrdlyng]

Cool. Thanks for the download link. For some reason I couldn't find it before. I've never tried using Photoshop 6 for digital painting primarily because it doesn't seem intuitive (meaning I don't know how ;).

I'll definitely download the trial version and give it a try with my Wacom. I don't see it as a replacement of traditional painting methods but as you said for some things it eliminates the scanning process (which I'm learning is kind of a pain).

I think I'll bring up a tie-in question as another topic.

[laine]

Hi.  I have Painter 5 and it's okay (Haven't tried any of the newer versions) but I feel there are some other programs you should seriously take a look at:

Mediachance Photo-Brush at www.mediachance.com  (Very affordable but no layers)  Deserves a look!

Satori FilmFX or PaintFX at www.satoripaint.com

Both of these really free your creativity.  FilmFX 64bit was on sale for $99!  Go check out the features of FilmFX...like resolution independence and 64 bit colour.  Layers don't slow down like in Photoshop!


Just suggestions...thanks,
Paul Laine

[J. Backman]

One warning about Painter: it's a major RAM-hog -- I'd say you need at least 1024 megs of RAM if you wish to use it effectively. Some people have trouble with the strange user interface with Painter 7, but version 8 fixes that with a more Photoshop-like UI.

[laine]

I agree with J. Backman...have lots of ram for Painter.  If you have a older system with under 512 ram...you probably will be dissapointed.  Go for a gig of ram if you are serious.

It is supposed to be the ultimate paint program but...in the older versions the interface was kinda clunky!  Hopefully that has changed.

Thanks,
Paul

[Bob McNamee]

Its funny about interfaces...

I've been using Painter since version 4, when it was Fractal Design.
The times I've had a chance to use Photoshop, I was seriously slowed down. Things just didn't work where or how I expected.

I have less than 512 RAM ... would love more sometime, but you can certainly do all sort of stuff with it using less RAM.

8X10 600 dpi photo manipulation may slow you down some, but its hardly unworkable. If you're working at the fairly low resolution of most PDF artwork, or web art, you've got no problems in almost any program you pick.

[laine]

Hi once again.  True.  If you plan on working at lower resolutions 512 ram should do nicely.   It is still very workable.  Maybe I was too harsh with my earlier posting.  What is comes down to is what you are doing with it I guess.  It's been quite awhile since I have used Painter 5.  Painter is still supposed to be the best at what it does...paint.

Also...I can't stand painting in Photoshop as well...not very intuitive.  Love it for other reasons though.  

As a question for Bob...how does Painter perform with alot of layers?  Just curious...not trying to cut the program down or anything.  Photoshop definitely takes a hit.

Thanks,
Paul

[Bob McNamee]

It takes a hit too.

I don't generally use a lot of big layers though. I might have 3 text based layers going, 1 or two large layers and 4ish object size layers going at once. I also am often working  at the smaller resolutions for web work.

Painting and other natural media effect is what Painter does best, and to use those features well you really need tablet input, although my wife does some cool stuff using the mouse.

Photocompositing, and especially correction, is better done in Photoshop. I know Photoshop is so much better than it used to be, even for the natural media painting look that Painter does. I'm amazed by works done in Photoshop like Feng's recent indie game artworks.

Both of these programs aren't cheap, but if you can use a student discount its a great way to get them.

 If I really had to get only one I would get Photoshop, for no other reason than that it is the industry standard for image making and manipulation. If you plan on doing further work, art directors, printers etc will expect that you know it. (I don't know it well, I'm an interested amateur)

 I love Painter, and transitioned from watercolor and acrylic painting. It lets me get looks that I like... in ways not too far from what I was used to.

 Somewhere on the web is an old review of Painter 5.5 that I did, not sure if its still up ... they are up to Painter 7 now.

 Not too harsh about the memory, I'm pretty patient though.

  I remember rendering a picture in POVRAY back around 1994? that rendered every night, and spare moment I wasn't using the computer, for about 2  months of the summer on my 386 sx 20Mhz machine. The things Lightwave can do in a few minutes on my current machine.

[laine]

I actually did consider getting the newest version of Painter but it was the price that deterred me as I'm past the academic discount.

FilmFX (www.satoripaint.com) as I mentioned before is really growing on me.  64 bit colour with almost unlimited layers.  It was used for matte painting on The Matrix because it can handle endless layers and handles large files extremely quick.  Right now I find it a joy to use to paint but I'm still figuring it out.  The strength to it is dividing up your painting process into layers so you can alter your image later on.  It's hard to describe it.  Kind of like painting with objects.  Lots of nice features.  I find myself getting larger and larger with my image sizes now.

I have to admit...I really like photoshop 7....except for straight painting.  Altering your painting tools while working seem awkward to me.  Maybe I'm just not used to it.

I have a wacom tablet as well...can't live without it!

Thanks,
Paul

[laine]

Sorry...realized I went off topic.  Definitely buy Painter if you have a discount.  If you want to paint...it is the program of choice.  I don't think you will go wrong.  Not many others out there that can compete on it's level.

Thanks,
Paul