Raving about PowerPoint "Art" - Chess Forums

NotKasparov

Jan 19, 2009

0

#1

I’ve been itching for a long time to rave about the virtues of illustrating with PowerPoint, so here it goes. It definitely takes some skill, but that’s about all. As long as you have a computer with Microsoft Office, you can make “art” on PowerPoint without having to work with paint/clay/stone (your opinions probably differ from mine, but I sometimes just want to shove paint into a parallel universe). It’s probably cheaper, too, and it’s easy to fix your mistakes. I think it’s possible to draw almost anything on PowerPoint, albeit it probably takes longer than if you’re good at drawing outlines by hand. What I think is the best thing about PowerPoint, however, is that it’s easy to add colors. In that respect, it’s definitely faster than coloring by hand, and you can change the colors time and time again if you think they need to be tweaked. Because color has such power to convey mood, I think that the ability to apply it quickly and accurately is, well, awesome. But what about textures? PowerPoint has like 24 textures built-in, and barely any of them are even potentially useful. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to make your own textures. Like say you want something to look like clay (I’m dreaming of having enough time to make an all-illustration book about the Golem of Prague). I googled “modeling clay,” and found

http://www.livengoodstudios.com/gallery_james.htm.

From this

I cut out this (from somewhere or other) (I’ve zoomed in on it)

Darkened it, saved it as a picture, used the picture as the fill for an oval, an now I’ve got the head to use for the golem (yes the eyes look a little cheesy but I think it’ll seem okay when they aren’t an enormous point of interest).

So I envy those who can work in paint or clay or other mediums. But if you ever feel like experimenting with something, try to make a “painting” on PowerPoint! (In the off chance that anyone actually does that, I can give you some help on how to make the details)

joetheplumber

Jan 19, 2009

0

#2

I find that photoshop and illustrator from Adobe work much better for digital design. They also allow the use of a Wacom tablet etc. and are much more flexable since they are made to draw in, not to make presentations. Im not a huge fan of digital art, it takes me much longer to do things on a computer than with pencil pen etc. Even digital photography is slow compared to working in a darkroom. ( I have one at home so I do this all of the time.)

I do have PS etc and am also willing to help anyone who needs pointers in any artistic medium.

Thanks for sharing.

NotKasparov

Jan 20, 2009

0

#3

joetheplumber wrote:

I find that photoshop and illustrator from Adobe work much better for digital design.

$$$$$! Doesn't illustrator cost like $500 (at least the newer one)? But yes, PowerPoint wasn't made for artwork, and that's apparent when you're drawing things.

notgm

Jan 21, 2009

0

#4

if you're looking for a cheap alternative to photoshop, look for the gimp. i'd also be remiss to not mention that worth1000.com's sister site, http://aviary.com/home, has an online image editor that's really cool and powerful.

full disclosure: i'm semi-associated with worth, but haven't been active for more than a year.