[Moderator Note -- This topic was split out of another, as it deserves its own thread. The opening quote came from this topic.]

brynn wrote:I'm not sure if snel hand traced the photo or not. Maybe just the outlines, but I really don't know. The outline view will only show how it was traced, IF it was traced. It will show the outline of everything, whether traced or not.

snel has been fairly private about the methods and techniques. Search the forum to see others! I know several people have asked how the hair is done. I think snel has a real gift for drawing hair! (also must have a super fast computer!)

thank you for your reply.

I'm sorry if this question is a really noob question.
Is there any other way to produce vector from a photo without trace it (or autotrace it)?
I really don't know it.


I'm not a designer or someone with good sense of art.
But I am really interested with art especially tracing in inkscape.

So far, I only make a vector image by tracing photo only.
This is one of my creation.

and this is its outline


I can reassure you that everything on it was created only using

As I said before, I'm not so good in art.
Maybe it's not a really good vector art, but I think that's the best I can do now.

My main purpose is not only the vector image, but also the video.
I'm using ed halley's python script from this link viewtopic.php?f=8&t=849
to make this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXaf2Cgr20

I also made few modifications in that python script and produce this video from same inkscape svg file.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTj-maiLrEo

Sorry if I'm out of topic, but I just want to say that I'm really interested to create much much better vector from photo and produce more videos.

As far as I know, the only way to create a vector image either of a photo, or to look like a photo, is to manually trace, or auto-trace.

I'm curious what else you're thinking might exist. Maybe a little magic spell? or or fairy dust ?? I don't really mean to make light of your question. I really am curious. I just can't conceive of any other method.

You do know there are a few different trace engines out there, right? They seem to work differently, and some might be better at photo reproduction than others.

Edit
PS - As for comments on the image, I don't think you've quite matched snel's abilities for the hair. And I think the skin areas could benefit from some blurring. And maybe other areas too. It's hard to say how well you've reproduced the photo, without seeing the original photo. Your method seems fairly effective, but I still think some blurring is needed. Did you ever see RM.'s photo realism? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3696&

brynn wrote:As far as I know, the only way to create a vector image either of a photo, or to look like a photo, is to manually trace, or auto-trace.

I'm curious what else you're thinking might exist. Maybe a little magic spell? or or fairy dust ?? I don't really mean to make light of your question. I really am curious. I just can't conceive of any other method.

You do know there are a few different trace engines out there, right? They seem to work differently, and some might be better at photo reproduction than others.

Edit
PS - As for comments on the image, I don't think you've quite matched snel's abilities for the hair. And I think the skin areas could benefit from some blurring. And maybe other areas too. It's hard to say how well you've reproduced the photo, without seeing the original photo. Your method seems fairly effective, but I still think some blurring is needed. Did you ever see RM.'s photo realism? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3696&

hi brynn,
About my question, I'm as curious as you are.
I just thought maybe there is another method that I don't know.
But after read snel's explanation from viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11591 and dillerkind's from viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9424.
I know it's not an easy way to create a great vector.


I rarely use filter or blur because I want to keep my work in 2D form.
But, I think it is worth enough to try on next photo trace to add some filter, gradient or blur.
Maybe the result wll be different.

hi again brynn,
I also want to thank you for bring this into a new topic and also sorry if I trouble you


I don't know where to start, but actually I was thinking for creating my own topic.
It's about "svgbuild".

Maybe you often saw me bring this "svgbuild" word in some of my posts.
I'm interested of this script created by Ed Halley that can create videos from an Inkscape's svg file.
I think that's why I trace photos.


But, I'm not confident of my work, I still need more study, more practices and more samples.
And I found a lot of amazing people and their artworks that I can learn so much here on this inkscapeforum.com.


I also think this is one of good way to attract people use inkscape, because this "svgbuild" can only be achive using Inkscape.


I made small modifications to that script.
This is the latest modification I made, give marker while creating path.
http://youtu.be/x_h5q_YA-cs (one minute length's video), a "butterfly" parametric curve from this viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12946
and this, visualize virtual camera.
http://youtu.be/TUOR9AXcyF4 (one minute and 46 seconds length's video) based on my first svgbuild video http://youtu.be/xWQWbbvYvlg
(I never post this anywhere because to be honest I'm still not confident enough)

I still have a few things in my mind that I want to do and try.
I want to create a good GUI for svgbuild too so it will be easier to be used, looking possibility that maybe batik (http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/batik/) or blender could be used on svgbuild, create an extension that can be used on svgbuild and write about tutorial or more.
I hope I can do it all.

No worries, it's no trouble. You're welcome to start a new topic about svgbuild, if you want to. I think Inkscape Resources subforum would probably be the best place for it

Edit
But I don't understand this:

I rarely use filter or blur because I want to keep my work in 2D form.

Using filter or blur doesn't make the image 3D. Even SVG files with crazy number of blurs and filters, is still 2D. Filters and blurs can be used to create a simulated 3D appearance, or photorealism, but it's always still 2D. And filters and blurs can also be used effectively in an image, without creating a simulated 3D appearance.

It's confusing, because in this topic, you've made an attempt at photorealism (apparently), which can only be a simulated 3D apprearance. A photo is always 2D, but depicts it's subject in a simulation of 3D. And you've actually come pretty close to a simulated 3d without using blur or filter.