Have filters become the graphic artists crutch?

[blastradius]

I have heard it said that all of the effects that one can create using the built in filters in photoshop can be duplicated useing just the tools found in the main toolbox.

My point in saying this is sometimes I wish it were a little more difficult to create some of the filter effect, because the ease of use has lead to abuse.

What are the most abused photoshop filters in your opinion?

I would have to say in my opinion it has to be the motion blurs. (although I am quite fond of this effect it is used everywhere. sigh...)

[jamesbudden]

Good point, I get fed up with the bevels and 3d effects some folk seem to get dazzled by.
I think to call yourself a designer or artist, you need to be fulfilling a vision, not being blindly led by the toolbox of someone elses software.

Remember when everyone started doing their own cards and letterheads using clip art and that 3d text effect from Word? I work alot in print, and the amount of times I had to spend an hour reproducing that stuff into pre-press artwork (when they'd just spent 2 days doing it themselves), when they could have had something nice and original for the same money, well, it gives me nightmares.

Photoshop filters are a useful and labour saving tool, but like any tool, should be used for a reason, and not for the sake of it.

James

[Dcrux]

I attempted to interest a publisher in a book idea for reproducing various art styles, then work back to the simplest ways to do it in several programs.

Not interested.

They sell books about the software features, and that means basic, most common used filters, and the most often used effects. Art styles as art students would learn about aren't of any interest -- only what the software can do most quickly and easily. This limits most books and tutorial sites to a couple of effects filters.

[freelancemom]

Seems to me that it's like anything else - the craft will evolve.

Once anything becomes automated, in my experience it opens up time and energy to improve on the main objective.

Kudos to the experts who can create the effects from scratch. For sure that is valuable knowledge.

But that's how these things go :)

Lori

[grease]

Strip away all of the effects of any design and you can easily tell whether or not the artist has any real design sense.

[Defty]

I gotta say bevel really does my nut, those big round gold logos really make me twitch! although when i first got ps i did love it, now i prefer the flat 'look' or 1 pixel bevels, altogether more subtle.

Its like so many things, dont use a filter just because its there, use it because its going to actually enhance your design.

[mm99]

As I became more familiar with photoshop, I started to see the same things over and over again on sites and I knew exactly how they were done.

I started to just read some good books and mags outlining various effects. Playing around with combined effects, is what really came around for me. I'm no whiz at photoshop, but I have all the basics down pat and know the diff effects well enough to know what will go with what. I just need to play with my toys more often.

Most abused? Curves, saturation, bevel, noise whatever...Should be used more? Sharpness, selective blur, masks, seperate layers for each and every little thing you do.

peace...Paul

[tj]

grease says:
Strip away all of the effects of any design and you can easily tell whether or not the artist has any real design sense.

i agree, and would just like to add that it would be nice if one design for the product/client - not for what happens to be the latest trend of the week.

filters are fine - if they are appropriate for the content...

I have a question for mm99 what do you mean by "curves"? - do you mean curved shapes or lines as a motif?... if so, I tend to agree.

[grease]

Or does he mean 'Curves' as in Image>adjust>curves.
If this is the case, I would have a problem with the statement. Curves can drastically improve the tonal range and quality of any photograph. I don't consider this an abusive tool. I use it quite often -and one would be a hypocrite to mention this tool as abusive, if they used Brightness/Contrast, Levels, or Lightness on a regular basis. Perhaps there is a particular use of this tool that I am not aware of.

Grease

[mm99]

I did mean curves as in "Image>adjust>curves". I use it all the time myself. But it seems that a lot of times it looks like it is being over used and "played" with to an excess. It's a great tool, just over used at times.

One thing I don't see abused as much as I used to, are some of the filters. I think we can all agree on that! Bevels are outta here, I agree. Want to make a site look like crap, crank it baby!

peace...Paul

[Webmaster-DSP]

I see things people do in the non-virtual world all to often too.
In the virtual world I see the transparent design overlay everywhere. On the news station adds and set, on CD and DVD covers, magazine covers. I'm really getting sick of them. I have started using Corel because they have a lot of different things, some superior in my opinion.
At least we care about originality.

[tj]

'Curves' as in Image>adjust>curves

I love those curves for image correction - esp b+w photography. I have not noticed much "abuse" of them... personally, I would have thought them too finicky for abuse - unless you mean like blowing out white areas or something like that. - but who knows perhaps I have not been very observant... I am sure that they will jump out at me all over the place now that I have been alerted.
:-)

blastradius says motion blurs - I can understand their frequent usage if you have crappy imagry to start with. I use them all the time in motion graphics - usually to create a frosty layer to juxtapose with a sharp one - it can ad depth without more "stuff". My favorite motion blurs are the ones I get by mistake in my 35 mm still camera - they are like little gifts from the god of boo boos that I wish I had planned. It seems to me, a filter just can't match irratic camera movement.

[mm99]

In my opinion Corel has lagged for quite a while. I read an article in one of the English mags that pretty must threw some death spin on their show. It was mentioned that the program was changing hands... new owners.

Now I hear that there is life in the matter. I checked out a demo of the prog and quite frankly, I was a bit impressed, although I did not look into it with any measure of depth.

It costs a lot less, does it not?

What do you feel are the major "superior" features compared to anything (I'm familiar with most everything in the class) and what real benifit would be in it for me, to invest in the learning curve to get up to speed on the product. And how great is the learning curve, in your opinion?

peace...Paul

[tj]

mm99
where might one pick up a demo of the new corel? I'm on a Mac.

[blastradius]

tj
heres the link for the trial download for corel draw 11 for the mac.
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel/Downloads/Details&id=1042152810526

[dave9]

i think the most over used phsp effect is lense flare u see it all the time added to poor images

"the art of using a filter is that when another designer looks at the work they can tell u used it"

from a friend of mine

D

[duffy]

i agree, i think i have seen lens flare used appropriately about once...possibly twice...

i am addicted to photoshop and am apprehensive to part from it, but many people have told be to swap to mainly using Adobe Illustrator... i have attempted to use it with little success...could someone please enlighten me to the benefits of Illustrator, as opposed to photoshop?

[grease]

Photoshop is a powerful, well-rounded application for altering photographic images and 'painting' raster images - but like most photo editors, it's specialty is not in illustration. (It's new tools may prove otherwise)

For many people photoshop is the first professional graphic creation software they are introduced to and it there is a common misconception that Photoshop is 'the' tool for anything graphic created on a computer. The problem with photoshop is that your images are 'raster' or made up of pixels. You can resize and alter raster images - but there will always be a loss of quality. Programs like Illustrator or CorelDraw have much more advanced drawing tools, and allow for the creation of 'Vector' images.

Vector images are represented by a mathematical formula - each point of a image is mapped and a formula connects it all to form a image. Because it is merely a formula you can resize, change color, skew..etc...without losing image quality. Also, the file size is much smaller. These programs are best for logo designs, line drawings, basic layouts, and so on.

You really notice the difference between Vector and Raster graphics in print. If you created a brochure in Photoshop, for example, you will have a slightly rough edge on high contrast areas - especially type, regardless of your resolution. Web formats, JPEG and GIF are raster - so ultimately the vector images at this point in time must be converted to raster at some point in time.

To make things even more confusing, Photoshop recently introduced a number of vector tools and Illustrator offers additional raster tools!

I hope some of this helps,

Grease

[duffy]

WOW! what a quick response!
thankyou so much, you have been an enormous help. i do have one more question though :) i have spent copious amounts of cash on my PC comp with new programs and hard drives etc, but ill be starting uni next year and supposedly you're no graphic desinger if you don't have a MAC...should i bother buying a mac? would it benefit me in the long run?
my aunt told me that MAC computers were actually invented to be suitable to design programs, is this true?

[Derald]

It is true that Macs dominate the design and scentific fields. IMHO, they are more intuitive than a PC...it works the way I think. The design community uses both platforms and I have seem more designers using PCs than ever before. I use both, but the majority of my creative work is on a Mac.

If you're a student and have invested in a PC, and are comfortable using it...stick with it.

Remember learn all you can about every software program and use it to interpret your creativity...not drive it.

Derald

[Digital Mattsiah]

First of all, Illustrator versus Photoshop: Eventually we'll probably see one mega program that does it all, the lines between the two programs are blurring anyways. But, think of the two programs and hammers and screwdrivers. Just another tool you know how to use that can help you achieve your design goal. I almost always start with paper and pen. Plan your project. Think about the design you're trying to achieve and then think about what road you need to take to get there.
As far as Mac's go... I hate them. They are not better at graphics. They cost more than PC's. They have the best advertising/marketing companies in the world. I love the way they look. Those campaigns were paid for by Microsoft and IBM (who want Mac's to see some success so it doesn't look like they TOTALLY dominate the market). But, don't buy into the hype.

[mm99]

How is it we're comparing ps w/ ill? We have 2 diff tools used for diff things. This thread started out as a question about the most abused aspects or features of ps. Right? I noticed lens flare in there somewhere and I agree with that!

Ill is used to draw or create graphics much like Freehand and 'in my opionion' freehand wins, hands down. I have used both and the newest version of FH is really the greatest thing since the 10 cent happy hour beer.

You would use photoshop much differently, of course, since it's a raster or bitmapper (I think I made that word up) program as opposed to vector graphics. Apples and prunes here, my friend. Greases post is 100% on the money.

peace...Paul

[cooper]

My apologies for responding off-topic, I just had to respond to this post.


First of all, Illustrator versus Photoshop: Eventually we'll probably see one mega program that does it all, the lines between the two programs are blurring anyways.
It won't happen. The software vendors may make it easier to switch between one and the other but to do it all in one app is like making the ultimate swiss army knife. It does all of those tasks, but none of them very well. Use the tool that is best suited for the job. I use Photoshop and Illustrator. I have also been using Fireworks for years which is one of the easiest/fastest design tools for the web. It doesn't have the power of PS or IL but it gets the job done, quickly. I wouldn't recommend it for print however.

But, think of the two programs and hammers and screwdrivers. Just another tool you know how to use that can help you achieve your design goal.
Exactly! And a screwdriver makes for a poor hammer and vice versa. Good analogy Matt.

I almost always start with paper and pen. Plan your project. Think about the design you're trying to achieve and then think about what road you need to take to get there.
Knowing this comes from expeience. Most people just geting into digital graphic design don't know what the differences (strengths and weaknesses) are between the two programs and why you would want to use vector drawing vs. raster. I think other posters in the thread have explained it well.

As far as Mac's go... I hate them. They are not better at graphics. They cost more than PC's. They have the best advertising/marketing companies in the world. I love the way they look. Those campaigns were paid for by Microsoft and IBM (who want Mac's to see some success so it doesn't look like they TOTALLY dominate the market). But, don't buy into the hype.
This is where you lose it Matt. Why would you hate something that is so powerful and easy to use? As far as Macs being better at graphics or not, it's more about the person using the machine.
I use both Windows and Mac OS's and each has their ups and downs but overall I enjoy using my Macs much more. There is far less maintenance and things just work with the Mac. I don't have to spend half my day figuring out why the OS doesn't work the way it's supposed to just to discover it's something that Microsoft neglected to fix in the last service pack. Third-party software and hardware works better on the Mac overall. The list goes on...
As far as Macs costing more, that's not true either. It's a popular misconception. Their initial cost is only slightly more than the average PC, but look at the standard features you get. If you tried to find an equally equipped windows machine (which doesn't exist for the most part as you have to scab together a bunch of thrid-party peripherals and software which are not always compatible) you would find that the price difference is minor and in some cases in the Mac's favor. Look at all the free software that comes standard with the Mac. And most importantly, look at how much time you spend just making the windows box work. Security patches, updates, viruses, unexplained bluescreens, etc. The registry itself is a huge problem in and of itself. I don't know about you, but my time is much more valuable than the price difference between the two platforms.

Now, to repond on-topic, yes the bevel effect is much overused. The huge organic shapes in the background thing is used quite a bit too. I think subtle effects go a long way, a slight drop shadow here, a glow there, maybe a guassian blur. Use the filters and effects sparingly people, not as a crutch.

[BitMaP]

In my opinion Corel has lagged for quite a while. I read an article in one of the English mags that pretty must threw some death spin on their show. It was mentioned that the program was changing hands... new owners.

Now I hear that there is life in the matter. I checked out a demo of the prog and quite frankly, I was a bit impressed, although I did not look into it with any measure of depth.

It costs a lot less, does it not?

What do you feel are the major "superior" features compared to anything (I'm familiar with most everything in the class) and what real benifit would be in it for me, to invest in the learning curve to get up to speed on the product. And how great is the learning curve, in your opinion?

peace...Paul

I've been using Corel since version 4 and when I did begin with Photoshop it only took a few afternoons of messing around to get up to speed on Photoshop. Theres not a lot thats different, only stuff thats missing in one or the other. I use Photoshop more for web page design and Corel for individual graphics and for textures.

[DigitalDragon]

I don't use any plugins, I don't like 'em - I use only what's included.

I didn't even used to use layer effects - for drop shadows, for example, I used to duplicate, tint and blur layers. I always felt I had more control. Nowadays, though, I hardly ever use drop shadows, so on the rare occasion I do, I'll probably settle for a layer effect.

Most pieces I do utilise a great deal of layers, and I make use of the blending options.

[crazyfruitbat]

Hi all,
Like most on my way to design stardom (ahem). I, like most, overused the endless array of photoshop filters. I remember the looking through magazines and seeing the dreadful 'lens flare' everywhere. Then along came Kai power tools to aid us in our lens flare heaven and gave us a HUGE array of flares of variety, styles, colours and direction.
Thank goodness those days are over...for filters are the scourge of the design industry (in my opionion anyway).

Most forget about the usage of these powerful programs, in their own right can produce fantastic masterpieces - but are they right for the design industry? Photoshop is without a doubt is a great program that 'assists' the designer to create an overall image. Though, it is a 'photographic editing' tool and in my opionion it should be used as such. We can take that annoying telegraph pole out of an otherwise beautiful picture or take out a multicoloured background & change it to a more suble colour. These are just 'tricks of the trade' rather than purely designing.
As a designer, I use only use a few filters: blur (perhaps to knock a background down on an image); Sharpen; a slight drop shadow (on occassions) and I frequently use the colour correction functions (although I dont regard them as filters). I use photoshop to make masks etc and save them as eps or tiff to import to another program.

I think a lot of designers have become 'dazzled' by the array of filters and are using them as quick fixes-as they know the client will love them.
Designers are problem solvers. We (try to) solve the problem of space on a page, while giving information about product etc. In general, it means that a photoshop extravaganza is unlikely to purely solve the problem. I agree with Grease who stated: 'Strip away all of the effects of any design and you can easily tell whether or not the artist has any real design sense.' Look at Grease's logo - how many filters on that - ZERO! (nice design by the way)
So, in one way I am happy that people use bad filters, as it shows decent designers in a good light; but on a bad point, the general public love filters and are likely to be amazed by bad designs with lens flares (bugger)

As for Mac vs PC, the age old arguement. Generally they are very similar: they both run the same software & have very similar hardware etc. The main difference is the operating system, we all know that windows is inefficent, thus leaves the mac more stable and runs a tad quicker. Large firms like newspapers use pcs because of the abilty to easily fix them quickly and cheapy, there are not a huge amount of IT technicians that are mac literate.
In design studios, macs are mainly used and maintained by the designers. Though, it is, as always, down to personal preference.

ooo, this turned into quite a rant. Must be fent up anger with filter loving design wannabies! haha

Later..Chris

[thehookah]

In my opinion. The computer in general, regardless of programs is merely a tool to turn an intangible (an Idea, a Vision) into a tangible (a brochure, business card, a label etc.). Good design does not start with a programs abilities to make something look "cool" in a few clicks of the mouse, it starts with a good and strong concept. Good design feels natural, as though it was meant to be the way it is. In other words, it simply works and provokes a particular emotion when seen by the viewer. I see certain design and I can instantly tell whether it was done directly on the computer without the stages of concepting and sketching ideas. Often times, it feels shallow and vague. I find design to be much more effective and interesting when you use your hand skills and be inspired by whats around you, instead of what's in you computer. Good design should feel appropriate to the subject matter and should communicate a message, whether it's a mood, a feeling or an emotion.

George Egho
TheHookah.com

"Inspired by the simplest things in life"

[blastradius]

thehookah
I agree and respectfully disagree at the same time. The program doesn't make good graphics it is still up to the artist. But a poor artist working with a conventional medium could just as easily create a drab emtionless piece.

And while I agree that it is tremendiously valuable to work ideas out on paper, I also find I leave myself more room for creativity by not working with paper.