3 ms·
The examples display a degree of vorticity that I have never seen in real life watercoloring. They look great superficially, but they look super weird at reason
by BugsJustFindMe 4mo ago
The examples display a degree of vorticity that I have never seen in real life watercoloring. They look great superficially, but they look super weird at reasonable inspection. Water on paper does not flow nearly so freely.
- lemming 4mo agoI agree, some of the examples look very nice, but some have small-scale vortices that really don't look realistic. That said though, lovely site and project!
- NoMoreNicksLeft 4mo agoI'm not sure "realistic" is important here. It's just art, and watercolors aren't known for being hyper-photographic to begin with. Instead, this enables... while it shows some ability to imitate digitally what watercolors can do on paper, it also shows that it can do things that physical media can't do at all. It's quite brilliant, and I wish it was in Gimp or even Inkscape. Can these images be stored as a sort of "vector"? To be able to go back in and dial down the vortices that you don't like (or to dial them even higher)? To design the water flow underneath as a field of sorts. Would be sort of awesome.
- BugsJustFindMe 4mo ago> I'm not sure "realistic" is important here. Whatever may be important to you, the website clearly presents itself as trying to realistically represent watercolor. It's a fine-ish first order approximation if you squint real hard, but doesn't capture the dynamics of watercolor.
- customguy 4mo agoCould one fix the paper on the bottom of in a container with just enough water in it to get a similar effect?
- Yenrabbit 4mo agoThere's a 'flow' slider I turn way down when actually painting with it, but I leave it high by default because that's the most "cool" feeling setting for a first interaction :)