I know a lot of computer artists do excellent work with a mouse. But tablets can be a great asset to some types of art programs.

Having Scottish blood in my veins, I had to do a lot of soul searching years ago before shelling out all my cold, hard cash for a digital tablet. These things are expensive (and probably overpriced). Are they worth the price tag?

After a couple of false starts, I settled on a Wacom tablet, saving several hundred bucks by buying a refurbished unit (Scottish blood, remember?).

When the tablet came and got plugged into my Windows 95 system, I certainly had second thoughts. Installing the driver was not a simple task and required a call to customer support.
Once it was up and running, I couldn't see a lot of improvement, though it was a lot easier on the fingers and wrist. Drawing is much more natural and less stressful on the hand than is a mouse.

At first it simply seemed that anything I could do with a tablet I could do just as well with a mouse. But determined to give it a try, I kept working with the tablet.

I was rewarded.

One day things seemed to click into place between my brain and the hardware, and abruptly I found myself doing things that were hard to impossible with a mouse.

Today my tablet, the cord held in place with paper clips and packing tape so it doesn't short out, and the hard surface on the plastic drawing area scratched off through millions of tiny strokes, is still working fine and really essential for my artwork.

In fact I'd rather go to a slower computer than give up my tablet, and that's saying a lot because I am not a patient man when it comes time to process an illustration or render a landscape. (Hopefully the culture Nazis won't break down the door and torture me with this decision of which I must give up.)

My old Wacom has continued on through my upgrades to W98 and now XP. It has outlasted my other hardware, going through three different computers now. (Sadly Wacom's latest driver for my tablet doesn't work well -- but I have copies of older drivers and these seem to hum right along without problem, good arguments for backing up and being willing to "upgrade backward" in order to preserve quality.)

Some graphics programs aren't suited for a tablet. Photo-Paint 8 (which has been my main paint program for years) never has worked well with the pressure-sensitive features of the tablet ( Wacom's new drivers don't help and Corel never did address this problem in this version of Photo-Paint, near as I can tell -- but these is often a minor complaint with the style of work I do), but it is otherwise I get along great with my elderly tablet.

Generally 3D program designers seem never to have heard of a digital tablet, near as I can tell. Poser, Vue, and the others can go into a tailspin when you try to run them with a pen. But paint programs... Here the tablet shines and becomes more of a digital paint brush or spray can than pen and tablet.

If you are serious about your digital artwork and use a paint program (Photoshop, Photo-Paint, Paint, etc.) then my advice is to run, not walk, to the nearest retailer and buy a Wacom tablet. After you've worked with it a bit, I'm betting you'll discover it has given you a big leap forward in your technical skills.

See more of my artwork (as well as short stories and other ''stuff''') at DuncanLong.com

Time is money — and you can also live a lot more life if you don't waste large chunks of it.
And a lot of time can be wasted on a computer. No, I don't mean surfing and such (though if the shoe fits...), but rather squandered time lost through extra keystrokes and needless mouse gestures that may be just a few seconds lost here and there, but which over a week's time, can amount to hours. Hours without anything to show for it, other than tired fingers and cramped wrists.

Now I don't have all the answers to this problem — and part of it is poor design work from software and hardware engineers who seem more interested in making things pretty and spacey rather than convenient to use.

But part of the loss of time occurs because we don't stop to ask "is there an easier way?"
I've been asking myself that the last few years, and I've discovered several quick ways to enjoy greater productivity, and also while experiencing a lot less frustration while working. (My apologies to Apple users — many of the methods outlined below will apply only to Windows users, though some will also apply to Apple machines.)

One is to get rid of all the menus and junk that otherwise clutter a screen and learn to use shortcuts. I am amazed to see artists and writers using browsers, paint programs, and word processors with huge toolbar "buttons" that require a mouse to be engaged to use them. Ditto for large collections of "palettes" that eat up monitor real estate. A better route is to lose these toolbars and palettes and use keyboard shortcuts whenever they’re available. These not only make for a less cluttered screen, they're also much faster than searching for a tiny section of the screen and clicking on it with a mouse or graphics pen.
Likewise, an action like closing a program (on Windows a Alt-space key C does this) is a lot easier than using the mouse to find the tiny "X" at the top right corner of the screen -- yet you see workers doing the latter all the time, day after day. I am certain that a keyboard shortcut will beat a mouse/screen button combo all day long, not to mention putting a lot less wear and tear on your wrist ligaments.

And with Windows, putting the Start bar an “auto hide” and to the top of the screen rather than at the bottom, quickly buys a chunk of screen space as well. (And the menu bar won’t be missed with the programs listed below.)

Some people need the Start bar to see what time it is. But a solution that I prefer — and which saves some more screen real estate — is to use a freeware program called TBC (for Title Bar Clock at [link]) which sticks not just the time but the date and day — or whatever you choose — into the title bar of the menu which is normally sitting blank and only looking pretty. With TBC that space serves a function.

In Windows and going from one open program to another? Using Alt-Tab is a whole lot faster than going to the start menu bar and clicking the program tab on a mouse.
Making the Title Bar and lettering on the menu bar smaller can buy some more screen real estate. Ditto for the size of the “X” and minimize/maximize buttons on the Title Bar as well as the scroll bars — all of which can be done away with using either a keyboard shortcuts (some in the programs listed below) or by toggling with Alt-Tab between programs rather than minimizing one to get to another.

Second, I use macro programs (currently the free AutoHotkey at [link] ) to remap my keyboard and add a variety of keyboard shortcuts. These also speed things up. I can use a single keystroke to launch common programs, adjust the volume setting, go to a news site -- no mousing to the Start column etc., etc. These give very noticeable gains in productivity and are totally free.

AutoHotKey permits changing the nearly useless cap key to a delete key and changing the F1 (equally useless) Help key into a Return button. That means if I am using the mouse, I can delete and Return without letting go of the mouse or having to reach across with my left hand to search those keys out.

I pulled off what I feel are useless, and apt to cause accidents in typing, keys from my keyboard — greatly saving retyping (along with changing the Caps key to a delete key). The "Insert" key is pulled along with the Windows menu key, Scroll break, etc., keys that were never used or frequently hit by mistake.

I have also modified my keyboard for easier "touch typing" by putting large dots from a glue gun on the Escape, F5, Home, End, Delete, and Windows keys. Now they can all be found without looking and mistakes are much less frequent.

I got a "small footprint" keyboard (the “Mini Thin Keyboard” available at a variety of places including [link]) that has keys smaller than standard keyboards (which works fine even with my ham-fisted paws).

This keyboard really speeds up typing. Its size means if I need the arrow keys, they are right next to the keys my right hand is on rather than WAAAAAAAY over there like on the allegedly "improved" IBM keyboard (which is not improved compared to the original IBM PC keyboard as far as I’m concerned). This keyboard is also light so I can put it on my lap, lean back in an easy chair, and type. (I would bet an easy chair recliner would boost productivity -- but bet corporate America won't be putting those in cubicles any time soon - ha.)
And it balances on my lap, unlike the lopsided, ban to the existence of the left-handed, 101-key IBM style keyboard.

A three-button mouse with a scroll key really speeds up mouse operations (Apple users take note). And a laser mouse is a must — roller balls waste a lot of time with their skips and cleaning needs.

AutoHotkey also allows "remaping" some mouse actions as well. For example, if I want to quickly go through a document, I can hold down my shift key and make the mouse scroll wheel go for a page with each cog turn rather than just three lines. And pushing down the middle button the scroll key is on takes me to the top of the document; a shift key (left hand) and the middle mouse button click (on the right) takes me to the end of the document. These are especially useful in navigating web pages.

The savings over a day’s time can be tremendous with AutoHotKey. Rather than use the mouse (or Windows/arrow keys/Enter keys) to go through the “Start”, open a group, search for my program, click on it routine to launch a program routine, I can do a Windows-W to launch Word, Windows-P to launch Photo-Paint, etc., etc., etc. One key stroke can open one program (or several that I use together).

Just one stroke. This is the way a computer SHOULD be. You make it jump through the hoops instead of slaving away to get it to launch a program.

AutoHotKeys means that when I need to do a Google search, I do Windows-1 and not only launch my Browser, but see it open to the Google search page. If I need to see the news, Windows-3 launches my browser and opens my three favorite news sites. Windows-6 opens six of my favorite art web pages. F1 isn't a useless help key on my computer -- now it is a return key I can work easily with my left hand when my right hand is operating the mouse or pen. On and on it goes with a variety of keyboard macros to handle tasks I do day in and day-out at the computer, from quickly opening plugins, to adding a signature at the end of a document, to “typing” passwords, etc., etc., etc.

I use StrokeIt (another freeware program — I have Scottish blood in my veins, after all — at [link] ) which permits holding down the right mouse button and going left to go to a previous web site, file, etc., etc., depending on the program it is in, draw a "C" to close a document, draw a "W" to close a window, etc., etc.

StrokeIt permits quick navigation, especially in a browser or File Explorer. On the latter for example, a left stroke takes me to the previous menu, and up stroke takes me to the next folder (or drive) step up from where I am — a small modification, yet it allows me to zip through nestled folders and jump around much more rapidly than can be done with the search and click method Microsoft gave us.

Since most of my work (both art and writing) is on "page" printouts, I got a video card that permits me to turn my monitor on its side, thereby giving a "page view" of what I'm working on. Coupled with getting rid of needless menus, this makes for a huge "page" view of what I'm working on, a nice "multiple" page overviews of a document, and so forth. I suspect that this up/down view of a page is equal to that of a 21-inch monitor — only on my much cheaper 19-inch. Sure, I don't have room for the various palettes, toolbars, and menus that many artists and writers have open. But, of course, since I use keyboard shortcuts, I don't often need those.
Bringing me to my final suggestion. If you can afford a larger monitor, it will save you time. That said, I suspect a majority of people working on a computer could see huge boosts in their productivity by employing the techniques (orthodox and unorthodox) outlined above to great advantage — and without the expense of that expensive monitor.

Saving time makes it possible to do more with the few precious hours you have each day. It can also make for a less hectic and more enjoyable experience when working at the computer. That makes it worthwhile to give a little thought at how you can streamline your work at a computer.

Recently there's been a push to call traditional media -- pen and ink, paint, chalk, and so forth -- I "analog art" with computer-generated art (CG art) being referred to as "digital."

Analog devices were used for computation not that long ago, the slide rule being one such tool. They were quick and dirty, and often their imprecision was a plus as it kept them cheap to make and fast to use. When digital computers came online, the divide was created.

But art is not science, even though the two are intertwined. And renaming devices retroactively gets to be iffy as well, rather like calling the horse-and-buggy a "mucle-powered automobile." Personally I think this is a big mistake.

Why not just keep our current "computer generated" and "traditional media" terms? They are much more likely to be understood by artists or even lay people you speak about such things. Do we really want some confusing jargon that is likely to confuse critics, the mainstream media, and art directors? (Hey, aren't things confusing enough already between artists and the public?)

"Digital art" is also useful for describing CG art, yet it is fast becoming inaccurate, at least to the human eye. Because while in theory our computers are digital, art programs and modern moniitors come awfully close to analog input/output given that our color spectrum (with 24/32-bit color) offers (according to some experts) several million discrete colors. Yes, in theory those are million discrete colors and therefore digital. But to most of our eyes, the look is an analog sweep through the spectrum rather than a collection of points.

Ditto with a gradient. In fact, when we see a collection of discrete colors in a gradient, we figure something is wrong. We’re not in digital territory any more, Toto.

I would bet that some of our computer-generated gradients are actually smoother and more gradual than those transitions created in the physical world with, say, an airbrush.

Now here’s the question: That being the case, does that make the airbrush digital and our computer generated artwork analog?

No?

Yes?

Maybe “CG” and “traditional” are best for now.

Of course ten years from now when CG artwork gets its due, I suppose CG art will become "traditional" and some clown will have to come up with a new term -- while another clown can be writing a blog somewhat like this one (ha).

But until then, let's avoid "analog art" and stick with the great traditional / CG divide for now.


--DuncanLong
=====================
Cover artist for HarperCollins' Digital Artwork for the 21st Century.
See more of my work at: http://DuncanLong.com/art.html