No idea how I’d do it in Photoshop.
Print out photo on water color paper with aqueous inks.
Hold under faucet.
- Duplicate layer.
- Filter>Texturize>Watercolor Texter.
- Apply smudge tool with texture brush for running dripping effect.
- Mask some of the new layer to get dry unaffected areas showing through.
- Sigh in frustration that steps 1 thru 4 will never be as quick or as real-looking as taking PD’s advice.
I’ve noticed how many people — especially new designers — mistakenly seem to think that artistic creativity and skill can be boiled down to a series of how-to steps on their computer.
I suppose one could paint watercolors onto tracing paper, then scan to an image file to bring into Photoshop and tweak the opacity.
And then they apply concepts like “most efficient way.”
I spend my days working for, with, and around Engineering types, who all too often ask how we might “improve efficiency” around the Communications functions I administer in their department, so it’s a sore subject of sorts. While I get that most people use the word “efficient” in a pretty broad sense, I can’t help feeling compelled to educate in my usual annoying and stickler-for-precise-language way.
The concept of predictable efficiency can barely be applied to activities like graphic design. It is much more a measure of machine activity, in which quantifiable material input is processed in a repeatable way to produce equally quantifiable material output. Then, throughput factored by time = efficiency. With that quotient in-hand, one could label the particular machine “XX% efficient” and expect that rating to hold true under the same conditions going forward.
So to graphic design, where so much more mind-time and direction-change is involved, perhaps one could apply the term postmortem, as in: “You got it all done in one week? That was pretty efficient.” But to entertain the notion that the many processes within the formulation of graphic design-product can be refined with the objective of “improving efficiency” in a predictable or repeatable sense is silly. About all the individual designer can do in this context is train oneself to recognize and abate lapses in self-discipline, time-wasting distractions, and ideas that are destined to fail.
you could use two image, one of the image of the girl and the other is the effect that was used on it. make sure that the effect layer is on top of the image of the girl then play around with the image filters in the filter gallery to give it that watery look.
when done doing that you can apply blending options to the image effect to blend in with the image behind it.
- Take a really hot shower but don’t turn the bathroom fan on so the mirror in the bathroom fogs up nice
- Use your hand and wipe various areas of your mirror
- Take a picture of your mirror (make sure you’re not in the way, this step is ideal if you’re a vampire)
- Open a Photoshop document with a picture of a lady, then place the foggy mirror picture above the lady pic
- Use a combination of masking and blending modes to create ideal image
Or just take the printout in the shower with you.
This is really important. There just aren’t enough vampire design tutorials out there.