I watched your video in the course of the last few days and used some of your experience. And I think your videos are the best; I up-voted most of them. However, this particular video has a problem: I don't think you understand the watercolors. The authors of the original Inkscape filter also failed to get it. Watercolor is not something blurry! Just the opposite: the first thing that makes watercolor so recognizable is some exaggerated contrast at the edges of the spot. When a wet painted spot dries, more hard particles of the pigment appear at the ages, creating this effect. Now, some fuzziness inside the spot takes place, especially when you paint on wet paper and use different colors, but it is more like a gradient than a blur. Overall, the watercolor effect is hard to reproduce. I'm not sure I can do it with filters, but some software products mimic it better. I also wanted to warn against Gaussian blur: it is generally not suitable for shadows. The simplest shadow looks very different: it is, roughly speaking, a uniform area, only slightly blurred at the edge, but the size of the blurred part depends on how diffuse the lighting is. Nevertheless, the Gaussian profile exists only in our imagination, like a conception, having very little in common with reality. Also, Gaussian blur is known to mimic bokeh very poorly. Naive photography retouchers often use it, and this is a very apparent sign of bad work for an experienced eye. You may argue that vector graphics should not be too realistic, and I will readily agree. But then I'll say: Gaussian shadows make it only worse. Instead of bad shadows, even no shadows at all would be better.
Do you mean this doesn't look like the watercolor effect he promised? Can you elaborate? I have to respectfully disagree. Did you ever create actual watercolor artwork using paints, a brush, a bowl of water and the textured paper to which watercolor effects best lend themselves? This is *exactly* what it looks like, but in more muted shades with softened edges because of how the textured paper absorbed the tinted liquid. These examples are precisely what I would expect if someone described a "watercolor effect". Have you considered creating tutorials on your own channel, so the rest of us can understand what your idea of "watercolor" is? (Also, I use Gaussian blur religiously for subtle shadows beneath the pages of my digital planners, to create the illusion of curves in the pages. It absolutely works - and works beatifully - for this purpose.)
@@WriterLady Thank you for your reply and your opinion. I wrote that comment exactly because I've done watercolor painting. I would try to elaborate if you could explain to me what else I need to describe, in addition to my first comment. I have already described a good deal of characteristics. I must say, it is not so easy to describe, would be easier to show. Now, I don't think you understand how subjective the perception of similarity is. First of all, there is the imprinting effect. People generally see not what they see, and the arty is generally based on it. And do on... Frankly, I don't think I can mimic the watercolor effect, but I can see what's wrong. I would be eager to see some better techniques. It's interesting that you did not argue against any of my arguments and still suggest “elaborate”. As to Gaussian blur: there is a lot of literature saying that this blur is not adequate. And still, I did not say it should not be used. I only say it does not depict the typical image of drop shadows. I explained why. You see, if you compare your drawing with the drawing of other authors to reassure yourself your technique is good, this is wrong. I would suggest you compare your image with nature. Then the usual misconception of the blur may become more obvious. I just watched the video again. The only interesting effect I can see is the shape of the fringes around the paint spot, showing, how the pigment goes along the paper fibers. We always see it at a distance, and it looks well. But watercolor has some more characteristics.
@@WriterLady ...When I wrote my previous comment, I spotted a video, where the author made some steps further, and his imitation of watercolor is more convincing. Please see: ua-cam.com/video/pT5rjJjna9w/v-deo.html. However, it was good up to the middle of the video, before he shaped the video into an Easter egg. But we don't have to follow this part and can continue this work in different ways. Don't get me wrong: Sweater Cat Designs channel is one of the very best, and I've learned a number of great things from Brandon. I would not criticize if I thought it was useless.
@@Micro-Moo "It's interesting that you did not argue against any of my arguments and still suggest “elaborate”." - Indeed. It would have been rude to argue, until I at least understand what you were trying to convey. I'll check out his other videos too, to see if I can understand what you're referring to.
@@WriterLady “It would have been rude to argue...” It is never rude to argue, as soon as the argument manner is not rude, even if it is somewhat incorrect. In the present case, I don't really see what exactly I need to elaborate on. Maybe you think statements like “watercolor is not something blurry” or “exaggerated contrast at the edges of the spot” require some proof. Or do you think that my statements themselves need to be more clear? You see, this is not that simple. Strictly speaking, you may need to measure some tonal curves depending on the coordinate and see what happens. Also, I have another idea: maybe you confuse blur with smooth color transition, the gradient. Those are different things. I just don't know what I can elaborate on. Also, I mentioned imprinting. Do you understand how imprinting works in art? At the same time, I'll gladly answer if you, say, quote some of my statements and point out what exactly is questionable. Also, I want to emphasize that this is you who would need to provide further arguments, and here is why: you make a stronger statement: “this is exactly what it looks like”. I made a weaker statement: “something is incorrect”. The proof of such a statement requires at least one contradictive example of a wrong feature. In contrast to that, your statement requires that you provide proof of “exact match” for each and every feature. That's why the positions in the arguments are asymmetric. Please, if you wish to continue this pretty interesting discussion, first make it clear if you agree with this logical principle or not. “I'll check out his other videos too” The other videos are mostly unrelated to the topic we discuss, or almost all unrelated. You would rather need to check out some watercolor paintings. By the way, some very relevant ideas related to painting and its perception can be found in the old Scientific American article by Floyd Ratliff, Contour and Contrast.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #30 ДВА В ОДНОМ [Один человек]• Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nrXy15orKhY/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the notice at 3:29, that was what I was missing 😀
This looks awesome! 😍 Thanks for the tutorial! 😊
Thanks for this great tutorial
This is great, thank you very much!
Awesome!
I watched your video in the course of the last few days and used some of your experience. And I think your videos are the best; I up-voted most of them. However, this particular video has a problem: I don't think you understand the watercolors. The authors of the original Inkscape filter also failed to get it. Watercolor is not something blurry! Just the opposite: the first thing that makes watercolor so recognizable is some exaggerated contrast at the edges of the spot. When a wet painted spot dries, more hard particles of the pigment appear at the ages, creating this effect. Now, some fuzziness inside the spot takes place, especially when you paint on wet paper and use different colors, but it is more like a gradient than a blur. Overall, the watercolor effect is hard to reproduce. I'm not sure I can do it with filters, but some software products mimic it better.
I also wanted to warn against Gaussian blur: it is generally not suitable for shadows. The simplest shadow looks very different: it is, roughly speaking, a uniform area, only slightly blurred at the edge, but the size of the blurred part depends on how diffuse the lighting is. Nevertheless, the Gaussian profile exists only in our imagination, like a conception, having very little in common with reality. Also, Gaussian blur is known to mimic bokeh very poorly. Naive photography retouchers often use it, and this is a very apparent sign of bad work for an experienced eye. You may argue that vector graphics should not be too realistic, and I will readily agree. But then I'll say: Gaussian shadows make it only worse. Instead of bad shadows, even no shadows at all would be better.
Do you mean this doesn't look like the watercolor effect he promised? Can you elaborate? I have to respectfully disagree. Did you ever create actual watercolor artwork using paints, a brush, a bowl of water and the textured paper to which watercolor effects best lend themselves? This is *exactly* what it looks like, but in more muted shades with softened edges because of how the textured paper absorbed the tinted liquid. These examples are precisely what I would expect if someone described a "watercolor effect". Have you considered creating tutorials on your own channel, so the rest of us can understand what your idea of "watercolor" is? (Also, I use Gaussian blur religiously for subtle shadows beneath the pages of my digital planners, to create the illusion of curves in the pages. It absolutely works - and works beatifully - for this purpose.)
@@WriterLady Thank you for your reply and your opinion. I wrote that comment exactly because I've done watercolor painting. I would try to elaborate if you could explain to me what else I need to describe, in addition to my first comment. I have already described a good deal of characteristics. I must say, it is not so easy to describe, would be easier to show. Now, I don't think you understand how subjective the perception of similarity is. First of all, there is the imprinting effect. People generally see not what they see, and the arty is generally based on it. And do on... Frankly, I don't think I can mimic the watercolor effect, but I can see what's wrong. I would be eager to see some better techniques. It's interesting that you did not argue against any of my arguments and still suggest “elaborate”.
As to Gaussian blur: there is a lot of literature saying that this blur is not adequate. And still, I did not say it should not be used. I only say it does not depict the typical image of drop shadows. I explained why. You see, if you compare your drawing with the drawing of other authors to reassure yourself your technique is good, this is wrong. I would suggest you compare your image with nature. Then the usual misconception of the blur may become more obvious.
I just watched the video again. The only interesting effect I can see is the shape of the fringes around the paint spot, showing, how the pigment goes along the paper fibers. We always see it at a distance, and it looks well. But watercolor has some more characteristics.
@@WriterLady ...When I wrote my previous comment, I spotted a video, where the author made some steps further, and his imitation of watercolor is more convincing. Please see: ua-cam.com/video/pT5rjJjna9w/v-deo.html. However, it was good up to the middle of the video, before he shaped the video into an Easter egg. But we don't have to follow this part and can continue this work in different ways.
Don't get me wrong: Sweater Cat Designs channel is one of the very best, and I've learned a number of great things from Brandon. I would not criticize if I thought it was useless.
@@Micro-Moo "It's interesting that you did not argue against any of my arguments and still suggest “elaborate”." - Indeed. It would have been rude to argue, until I at least understand what you were trying to convey. I'll check out his other videos too, to see if I can understand what you're referring to.
@@WriterLady “It would have been rude to argue...” It is never rude to argue, as soon as the argument manner is not rude, even if it is somewhat incorrect. In the present case, I don't really see what exactly I need to elaborate on. Maybe you think statements like “watercolor is not something blurry” or “exaggerated contrast at the edges of the spot” require some proof. Or do you think that my statements themselves need to be more clear? You see, this is not that simple. Strictly speaking, you may need to measure some tonal curves depending on the coordinate and see what happens.
Also, I have another idea: maybe you confuse blur with smooth color transition, the gradient. Those are different things. I just don't know what I can elaborate on. Also, I mentioned imprinting. Do you understand how imprinting works in art?
At the same time, I'll gladly answer if you, say, quote some of my statements and point out what exactly is questionable.
Also, I want to emphasize that this is you who would need to provide further arguments, and here is why: you make a stronger statement: “this is exactly what it looks like”. I made a weaker statement: “something is incorrect”. The proof of such a statement requires at least one contradictive example of a wrong feature. In contrast to that, your statement requires that you provide proof of “exact match” for each and every feature. That's why the positions in the arguments are asymmetric. Please, if you wish to continue this pretty interesting discussion, first make it clear if you agree with this logical principle or not.
“I'll check out his other videos too” The other videos are mostly unrelated to the topic we discuss, or almost all unrelated. You would rather need to check out some watercolor paintings.
By the way, some very relevant ideas related to painting and its perception can be found in the old Scientific American article by Floyd Ratliff, Contour and Contrast.