Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura)
Subject: Re: Sozobon Sprites
Organization: Consultant, Toronto
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 04:36:09 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Jan2.043609.15561@lsuc.on.ca>
References: <1990Dec17.211812.21144@lsuc.on.ca> <1990Dec21.181322.11004@ecst.csuchico.edu> <1990Dec27.050229.5360@lsuc.on.ca> <1991Jan01.015336.18335@ecst.csuchico.edu>

In article <1991Jan01.015336.18335@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes:
>jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes:
>
>- That's not to say that it's impossible to create a great
>- picture with Degas, for an artist you're working against the program
>- rather than with it.  It's like this:  You're standing in front of
>- your canvas with your "assistant" sitting beside you.  Every time
>- you want to change colours on your brush or think about picking up
>- a different brush, he throws a blanket over your picture. . . .
> 
>A real artist must look down to his palette to change colors, right?
>So he's not always looking at his canvas. :^)  Anyways, wouldn't a
>real artist have the image in his mind, so putting a blanket over the
>image wouldn't be so bad?  Dunno.  Like I said, I'm not a real artist.
>:^)

     Look, if this is just some big joke to you, please stop
posting to the Net at all.  I don't have time to waste and I
know a lot of other people who are likewise busy trying to earn
a living, but are willing to take time to help each other by
sharing their very valuable information.  Now, on the chance
that you really want to know the answer to your question, it's
like this.  "Changing colours" is not a single describable
function for an artist.  What an artist will do will depend
on things like the medium in which he's working and the point
at which he is working, but generally, no, you're wrong.  Take
an artist working with acrylics or oils and well advanced in
a painting.  S/he reaches a point where a detail is needed.
The artist will probably lift up the palette to the work.
It's obvious really.  Why would an artist concerned with a
precise colour want to guess what's on the brush or knife?
On the other hand, I've seen artists take a tube and dab a
colour straight onto a canvas and then work it around.  But
even then, you could say that the artist decided on the final
colour mix while comparing it to the whole work.  Chosing
colours in that regard is never "in isolation" from the piece.

     I don't think you realize that the human vision system
sees colours as a relative matter and not as an absolute.  If
your really interested, you should do some real research into
it because I'm certainly not going to teach you the "carotine cycle"
and current theories of how the brain works.  But the bottom line
is simple.  An artist generally wants to see the work.

>-      Then again there was the disappearing cursors.  That was another
>- "classic feature" of Degas.  Degas was a "passable" program at a
>- time when the only other program on the market was Neochrome.  I
>- hated Neochrome even worse, though thankfully, it's been so long
>- since I used it that I've actually forgotten exactly what it was
>- I didn't like about it.  Hey Neato!!!  A bad memory has its 
>- compensations! :-)
>
>Perhaps I should have been more specific to say "Degas Elite" instead 
>of Degas.  I've never used Degas.  It was a mistake to bundle the two 

     I used both.  The disappearing cursor was never fixed.  It's
still a problem.  By the time I bought CAD-3D version 2.0 I got
really peeved with Tom Hudson.  In both "upgrades" he never addressed
the fundamental problems with either program.  He just added more
"features".  In effect, his programs have long lists of "features"
yet do little more than get in your way when you're trying to get
things done.  You know, to this day I have yet to find anybody
who actually used CAD-3D to *create* an object.  At most they used
it to do a fancy render.  But the "D" in the name of the program
is supposed to mean "design", and refers to the creation of the
objects.  Anyway, I'm happier now with CyberSculpt.  Be this is
digressing again. . . .

> 
>-      Anyway, CyberPaint is the best program I've tried on the
>- ST so far in this regard.  Deluxe Paint may be better, but I
>- haven't gotten around to trying it yet.
> 
>I never regarded CyberPaint as a paint program, but more of a tool 
>for animations.  Now that you mention it, I guess it could be used as 
>a paint program.

     Ironically, I've only done a bit of animation work with
CyberPaint, but on the contrary, I've found it a *wonderful*
paint environment.  One of the fantastic advantages is that I
can bundle a group of related pictures together in a single file
which will load and unload all at once.  Yup, most of my .SEQ
files are *not* animation sequences at all, but simple bundles
of related pictures.

>-      With CyberPaint you don't "hold down the right button."  You
>- just click it to bring the menu bar up and click again to get rid of
>- it.  This is the best user interface for artwork that I've seen
>- so far -- as I've said before.
>
>Have you used any of the paint programs on the Mac?  Pixel Paint 
>Professional is one I like (but it's on the Mac :^( ).  It has many 
>features that aren't on other programs, but like other drawing 
>programs for the Mac your image is always on the screen, and you just 
>change your tool or select your color by selecting one of the icons on
>the left.  Or another way would be to have two screens, like with the
>Lumena, ArtStar, or Dubnar systems; one screen is for the commands and
>the other is for the image.  Finally, TIPS and RIO also implement a 
>nice interface with a menu that appears up over the image when you
>press the right mouse button or the stylus button.

     I've tried some Mac paint stuff casually, but I don't own
a Mac.  I couldn't tell you the names of what I tried.  Overall,
the main problem with the Mac programs is that because they are
single button oriented, they tend to be cluttered.  You generally
work with the menu on the screen all the time.  I don't want that.
I want to see my picture.  In effect, 1.  I don't want menus on
screen at all when I don't need them and 2.  When I need a menu
I want as little of the screen taken up by them as is possible,
and definitely not obscuring the main part of my work unless
unavoidable.  Is there some point to this discussion?  It's not
helping me get my program done.

>- In fact, it's so good that I obtained Jim Kent's permission to copy
>- the whole CyberPaint user interface for a paint program on another
>- computer.  That's an interesting story.  I actually finished that
>- program and it works.  Jim Kent has a copy of it.  Unfortunately, the
>- computer I wrote it for was marginally popular and the negotiations
>- for the distribution of the program died.  9 months of work went down
>- the drain.  Life'ls like that. . . .
> 

...



-- 
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
