Photo: Salvaging an illustration in a way that it looks more like a painting?

[Amy Choue]

I've talked about this in a previous post. I'm working on a book on Napoleon, and a designer is creating a cover for me. Here below is the most recent draft. This feels disingenuous on my part, presenting someone else's work (without her permission) and seeking advice on how improvements can be made on it. I've stopped learning Photo after I learned the most basic parts (importing, exporting, changing hues), a few non-essential things that can be learned in a day or a couple of hours. I know so little and need help about what to think of how this cover image can be made better. 

I do not totally dislike it, but it's hard to like it either. The book (I am not the author, I'll have to say this) is very serious, sort of very "high brow" work. It was written to bash and banish all the legends surrounding Napoleon. The cover does not go with that. I made it clear at the start of the collaboration that Napoleon in the cover should have some gravity, as an important historical figure, and to that end it's essential that he shouldn't look cartoonish. I asked her to create something that looks like a painting (an oil painting), as far as it is possible, with so many actual Napoleon portraits as references. Her answer was that to make an illustration look like oil painting just cannot be done, that to have something that looks like an oil painting I'll have to actually paint an oil painting. 

I'll have to admit I'm somewhat skeptical about that. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that digital art actually still has some serious limitatations and many of the striking images (whether on book covers or film posters or whatever it can be) were actually done by hand, with physical materials, in the most traditional way. (*Of course I may be remembering this incorrectly. Please take that as "something to that effect"). So I think what she says must be partly right. But it seems to me, on the other hand, that illustrations can be made look like paintings; not really like paintings, but some feel of paintings. Isn't that what people do with Procreate and other drawing tools? 

 

So my question is, can Napoleon in this draft be salvaged in a way that he looks more like from a painting? May I mention to the designer about Procreate and how painterly effect is done in it? (This makes me laugh, in spite of myself. Of course she will know about it and must have used it. I knew only vaguely about it, but checked it out this morning on Youtube and purchased it. Maybe I'll have to learn it to salvage the cover myself). 

[PaulEC]

I can only offer a personal opinion, but firstly it does seem that you picked the wrong artist to do the style of work that you wanted. Secondly, I have to say that I really don’t think you should now take someone else’s artwork and change it without their consent. Obviously it all comes down to the contract you have with the artist, but my own feeling is that you should be up front and tell them that the illustration is not suitable, and if they cannot supply an illustration in the style you requested, you need to find another artist who can. (Which should be perfectly possible, although they may not necessarily choose to use Procreate!; they may prefer to use something else, maybe even Affinity!)
The other option would be to use an existing painting for the cover (obviously you would have to deal with any copyright issues. EDIT, according to Wikipedia both these pictures are in the Public Domain). For example, a couple of well known paintings by David come to mind that might be suitable: Napoleon in his Study at the Tuileries (which is very close to the picture your artist provided} or one of him on horseback, Napoleon Crossing the Alps.

[Amy Choue]

Thank you for the suggestion! I'll have to see where this ends, maybe the end result will be to my liking. I was somewhat stressed out during the process, but somehow got over it, thinking that this experience definitely will push me to learn, learn enough to be able to create what I want. In case I'll have to correct the end result, I'll certainly get a consent from the artist. 

But is it asking too much to make it look more like hand-drawn painting? If so, is it because of the time required? I paid $150 for the work. It is not that much (works of good artists will be far more expensive), but I thought I could expect some decent painting-like Napoleon image at that price.  Whew.... (many sighs....) 

 

I think if my cover can look the way the cover of Ruth Scurr's book looks, I'll be fully satisfied. Can Napoleon in my draft cover be turned into somewhat like Napoleon in Scurr's cover? To an untrained eye, Napoleon in Scurr's cover doesn't seem like very elaborate, very ingenious drawing; of course it may only look that way, while in truth it required a lot of time and talent. This will be my first option for salvaging. 

The artist had said that the illustration can be done in the style shown in the image of Cillian Murphy below. I had liked that and said yes to her. I don't know why the result doesn't look like that Cillian Murphy image. This will be my second option. 

The artist also had suggested, if I insist on the feel of painting, she can do something like the Jobs image below. Now it seems, this won't be that bad either. So this is the third option. 

 

This posting is so not about Affinity and entirely about how my cover can be salvaged. My apologies! And I cannot presume to ask for advice on those three options. I actually have published 2 volumes of this 4-volume work with covers that I created myself. I had used iconic paintings of Napoleon for them, and though they do not look professional, one reader told me that they do not look absolutely terrible either. I might have to return to what I did for them and create covers for the remaining 2 volumes myself. But I really want to salvage that somehow. Using one same image for all 4 volumes somehow seems right. 

 

So I would appreciate any inputs and suggestions. Would you like an image of Napoleon done in the way Jobs' face is done, that abstract painting-like look? 

[PaulEC]

Personally I think that it makes sense for a series of books to have similar covers, so I would suggest carrying on in the same style. Having said that, it looks to me like the "Peaky Blinders" picture was done by hand, but based closely on a photo. If you want to gat a similar look, but don't want to start from scratch, I'd suggest having a look at a couple of free apps: G'MIC https://gmic.eu/download.html and FotoSketcher https://fotosketcher.com/ and see if any of the effects give you the result you want.

 

[thomaso]

11 hours ago, Amy Choue said:

I made it clear at the start of the collaboration that Napoleon in the cover should have some gravity, as an important historical figure, and to that end it's essential that he shouldn't look cartoonish. I asked her to create something that looks like a painting (an oil painting)

Though this is a follow up of your threads about artistic style & creation technique, it is not "clear" yet what you expect but still requires interpretation of ideas, goals and use of certain words. Apart from unspecific, ambiguous terms to describe one or the other, "style" + "technique" are two independent aspects and properties: While "style" is an individual, emotional aspect (-> "taste"), the "technique" is rather physical, objective and can be 'measured'. Accordingly "style" is a lot more difficult to describe with words than "technique" and can hardly be defined clearly unambiguous, often using comparisons (e.g. "like …" | "as if …" | "more than …") with the hope to narrowing down the range of possible meanings and misunderstandings.

Concerning "technique", the term oil painting can mean to be made of oil paint … or refer to a reproduction as print with ink (oil or water based) or a photo/scan of a painting … or be (re-)created manually, drawn (≠ painted) with digital tools ('texture brushes') … or even fully computer generated via artificial intelligence based on and mixed of existing pictures.

As soon the picture gets digital it will be 2-dimensional and lack the haptical surface of a so called "original painting". Especially wet paint/ink can be obviously 3-dimensional by varying amount of paint and cause reflections + shadows by its brush stroke texture details varying with the viewing / light angle. Paint with a high part of colour pigments + thickening binder material shows this more than other paint – opposite to pure liquid ink (e.g. water colour) or dry materials (e.g. pencil, charcoal) which don't cause an obvious haptical texture.

Especially in earlier centuries oil painting used a mix of techniques: some parts were painted with thick, opaque paint while other areas were thinned with fluid and painted in a 'glaze technique', combining multiple semi-transparent layers of paint and not causing the obvious 3-D surface of thicker application of paint. This aspect in particular can make it hard nowadays to judge or detect from a reproduction (photo / printed book cover) of a painting whether it was initially created with paint or purely digitally. Earlier paintings were often done with the goal to look like photos (before "photography" was invented), as also the later "photo realism", manually oil painted in the mid of the 20th century – and both very different to e.g. "impressionism" where its manual brush strokes where meant to become obvious. So when talking about painting it is useful to point to the specific desired aspects and details. Though David Hockney became a known "digital painter" with results that may impress by a simulation of wet paint they also may appear "flat" and make the digital technique obvious.

8 hours ago, Amy Choue said:

I paid $150 for the work. It is not that much (works of good artists will be far more expensive), but I thought I could expect some decent painting-like Napoleon image at that price.  Whew.... (many sighs....) 

Price & value are both relative, aren't they? Both are independent aspects, too. Especially if "style" gets involved, visual design (incl. fashion, cars, devices, …) can get extreme prices initially, or over time without a change to the usability or 'actual' value. So, price, value and "style" require communication + agreements of both parties of a deal and don't work in one way only. Although a precise use of terms influences the understanding both parties may have a different understanding of same words until the end of a process or deal.

On 11/11/2023 at 10:22 AM, Amy Choue said:

but working with a designer with whom I cannot really communicate well (ha... sigh)

A decade ago there was a website specialised to communication issues + misunderstandings between designers & clients, documented with dialogues, called "Clients From Hell". In the meantime it moved to another site where it still gets fed, and, interestingly, still causes hundreds of reader's comments to certain articles. From that aspect it appears misleading up to useless to describe a situation with "I made it clear that…" – unless there aren't doubts any more.

Apart from the two links above, the problem was also demonstrated in faked / comedy plays, a quite known is this video, pointing to the dilemma of client + designer and their different understanding of being an expert + words to describe a desired result: