Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Realistic Clouds
- Thread starter beedyb220
- Start date
Tron
Guru
- Messages
- 1,176
- Likes
- 9
beedyb220 - I am not aware of one that is totaly realistic. My suggestion would be to use Terragen to generate your clouds and then import the clouds into Photoshop. That way you would have totaly realistic clouds. 8))
Go here to obtain Terragen - it's free
http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen/download.shtml
Go here to obtain Terragen - it's free
http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen/download.shtml
You can also do a web search for Photoshop Cloud tutorials. There are a bunch of them out there, although Rick's right, in that none of them look truly realistic...Terragen, Atmosphere, and Bryce are somewhat better, but they too, still look "artificial" to a point.
It will depend on what you do with the clouds as to how successful an illusion you will create...
Good luck!
It will depend on what you do with the clouds as to how successful an illusion you will create...
Good luck!
http://share.studio.adobe.com/axQuickSearchSubmit.asp?txt=clouds&allprods=0&submit1.x=33&submit1.y=8
Try the cloud brushes or the action. You will have to become a registered member but everything is free.
If this doesn't work I would suggest masking in a few clouds... I have a few free photos that might be of some use.
Take care, Hatch
http://www.psxtras.com/html/photos.html
Try the cloud brushes or the action. You will have to become a registered member but everything is free.
If this doesn't work I would suggest masking in a few clouds... I have a few free photos that might be of some use.
Take care, Hatch
http://www.psxtras.com/html/photos.html
Another possibility which is expensive but cool is Aurora 2 by Digital Elements. Unfortunately is costs as much as Vue d'Esprit, a better than Bryce 3D scene creation/landscape program. Use the Terragen or Hatch's suggestions for free, realistically. However Aurora is a plugin for PS which comes as close as possible to turning PS into a 3D environment. It renders out skies/atmospheres/space/stars/sun/moon/water/underwater very well. Here are couple of examples.
They were each done by having a white background layer one layer with a rasterized bird shape which was given a style to make it a bit more realistic, two blank layers, and then Aurora was run with a couple of presets which I tweaked slightly.
They were each done by having a white background layer one layer with a rasterized bird shape which was given a style to make it a bit more realistic, two blank layers, and then Aurora was run with a couple of presets which I tweaked slightly.
Those plug-ins and environment apps do an okay job, I guess, but they still always look like some white smudges. They don't have any real depth. But they'll do in a pinch, especially if they don't have to appear too real.
If you're willing to put some time in by hand, there is a great Photoshop Cloud painting tutorial here
If you're willing to put some time in by hand, there is a great Photoshop Cloud painting tutorial here
Remember the old poem "I think that I shall never see..."? Clouds, being made up of various densities of water vapor is one of those elusive renderings that has been attempted for centuries, and very seldom well accomplished. It's somewhat easier than painting air, but not much... 
I think that is why I subconsiously do not include large expanses of sky in my works, because I can't accurately portray it beyond big swashes of blue gradients, and some white and grayish smears in layers to try to represent "fluffyness"...
Now THERE'S a challenge in the making, eh? [saywhat]
I think that is why I subconsiously do not include large expanses of sky in my works, because I can't accurately portray it beyond big swashes of blue gradients, and some white and grayish smears in layers to try to represent "fluffyness"...
Now THERE'S a challenge in the making, eh? [saywhat]
I've used clouds and sky often. I also spend a great deal of time outdoors studying them. In a sense no one ever captures clouds, not even clouds themselves! They vary every hour of every day. You can see almost any variety of cloud that had ever been attempted to replicate at sometime, somewhere. Many folks, imagining clouds, think of the dramatic cumulonimbus and yet they occur seldom and even then, only regularly, in select locations.
There are no typical clouds, as they vary with each locale. I happen to live in the redwoods overlooking the Pacific Ocean on the central California coast. Our clouds tend to be low and personal, if you will, as we are often in them either from fog or storms blowing onto land after traversing the Pacific. Overlooking the fog banks, when you are standing at 1500 ft. and right at the lapping edge of the fog, looks very like the first cloud image I posted. Some days, the ends of storms look very like the second.
I don't mind using stylized images at all because it depends on the desired result of the art. I strive to create a feeling on top of which I'll add an idea. People seldom apply critical evaluation to elements designed to create a feel. That leaves aside the fact that exact replication of physical reality is impossible. Even photography is stylized.
Part of creating images is the recognition that seldom does the observer spend more than seconds observing the results. I once riveted the attention of a person for 10 minutes, directed toward a sculpture which had taken me two years to create. I thought it was amazing as the average attention span was between five and thirty seconds, if they paid attention at all. I watched thousands of people interact with the piece as an anonymous observer. It was enlightening. Remnant lessons from that endeavor is that criticism is vastly over-rated and usually a defensive posture. Additionally, there is no accounting for taste and no premiere taste.
Cheers!
There are no typical clouds, as they vary with each locale. I happen to live in the redwoods overlooking the Pacific Ocean on the central California coast. Our clouds tend to be low and personal, if you will, as we are often in them either from fog or storms blowing onto land after traversing the Pacific. Overlooking the fog banks, when you are standing at 1500 ft. and right at the lapping edge of the fog, looks very like the first cloud image I posted. Some days, the ends of storms look very like the second.
I don't mind using stylized images at all because it depends on the desired result of the art. I strive to create a feeling on top of which I'll add an idea. People seldom apply critical evaluation to elements designed to create a feel. That leaves aside the fact that exact replication of physical reality is impossible. Even photography is stylized.
Part of creating images is the recognition that seldom does the observer spend more than seconds observing the results. I once riveted the attention of a person for 10 minutes, directed toward a sculpture which had taken me two years to create. I thought it was amazing as the average attention span was between five and thirty seconds, if they paid attention at all. I watched thousands of people interact with the piece as an anonymous observer. It was enlightening. Remnant lessons from that endeavor is that criticism is vastly over-rated and usually a defensive posture. Additionally, there is no accounting for taste and no premiere taste.
Cheers!
Also, people mostly forget that clouds are very large, and have a lot of perspective in them. Perspective in distance that influences the saturation and adds greyish blue when nearing the horizon, perspective in shape, and perspective in contrast.
No matter how you create clouds, you need several layers of them.
My suggestion: use photographs, and use them intelligently.
No matter how you create clouds, you need several layers of them.
My suggestion: use photographs, and use them intelligently.
You had me up until the end, Welles!
Criticism inherently cannot be defensive, as it is an evaluation of something's merits and demerits, with the faults therein pointed out. Criticism is the expression of a hopefully reasoned opinion involving judgement on any matter. With the exception of the small percentage of critics who may be defensive based upon some personal, psychological inferiority to the artist, I would venture that criticism is not a "defensive" posture by any definition of the word.
Now, the recipient of the criticism may be defensive, but that is another matter entirely.
Taste is a matter of perception, experience, or enjoyment. And while there is no accounting for taste, as evidenced by the popularity of Adam Sandler movies, there most certainly are accepted and well-defined "standards" that the majority of people generally agree on as representing "good" taste. And, taste does not necessarily coincide with "popularity." Does this forbid "non-conformists?" Of course not, but the rebel presence in no way negates, nor lessens the value of a good critical eye.
Digital cloud plug-ins, for the most part are push button effects only slightly above the ubiquitous lens flare or page curl, and like those shopworn effects, tend to become obvious to the more "critical," as compared to casual observer. For the vast majority of Photoshop users, it makes no difference, as they have no need of quality cloud effects, but for the professional artists who generate income with effects, obviously CG clouds DO make a noticible difference...I guess I consider everyone to be more along the lines of critically discerning than average user.
Some people observe art quickly, some people spend years studying one particular artist, or work. Does this mean the quick viewer is not as discerning? Possibly. Does this mean that the artist can then "cut corners" on their works, since the average viewer will only look at it for a few seconds? Sure. Does this mean the work is lessened by the cut-rate effect? Who knows? In the end, it will boil down to how much effort the artist chooses to exert, for whatever reasons. My comment was more for those newer Photoshop users who may not be aware that for some of the more discerning viewers, cloud plugins, like the lens flare, have their time and place, but should not necessarily be considered a good approximation of clouds.
Those Pacific winds have you definitely blowing that one out of your hat!
Criticism inherently cannot be defensive, as it is an evaluation of something's merits and demerits, with the faults therein pointed out. Criticism is the expression of a hopefully reasoned opinion involving judgement on any matter. With the exception of the small percentage of critics who may be defensive based upon some personal, psychological inferiority to the artist, I would venture that criticism is not a "defensive" posture by any definition of the word.
Now, the recipient of the criticism may be defensive, but that is another matter entirely.
Taste is a matter of perception, experience, or enjoyment. And while there is no accounting for taste, as evidenced by the popularity of Adam Sandler movies, there most certainly are accepted and well-defined "standards" that the majority of people generally agree on as representing "good" taste. And, taste does not necessarily coincide with "popularity." Does this forbid "non-conformists?" Of course not, but the rebel presence in no way negates, nor lessens the value of a good critical eye.
Digital cloud plug-ins, for the most part are push button effects only slightly above the ubiquitous lens flare or page curl, and like those shopworn effects, tend to become obvious to the more "critical," as compared to casual observer. For the vast majority of Photoshop users, it makes no difference, as they have no need of quality cloud effects, but for the professional artists who generate income with effects, obviously CG clouds DO make a noticible difference...I guess I consider everyone to be more along the lines of critically discerning than average user.
Some people observe art quickly, some people spend years studying one particular artist, or work. Does this mean the quick viewer is not as discerning? Possibly. Does this mean that the artist can then "cut corners" on their works, since the average viewer will only look at it for a few seconds? Sure. Does this mean the work is lessened by the cut-rate effect? Who knows? In the end, it will boil down to how much effort the artist chooses to exert, for whatever reasons. My comment was more for those newer Photoshop users who may not be aware that for some of the more discerning viewers, cloud plugins, like the lens flare, have their time and place, but should not necessarily be considered a good approximation of clouds.