Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
The light blotches are definitely "intentional"! I just wasn't sure about the clarity, distortion, noise, and all of the other factors that determine print ability...Thank you for the encouragement Vivian...I have as much fun playing with this technique as painting sometimes.I have so many ideas that I could incorporate into this it is almost "uncanny"!
Speaking as a photographer, one other thing bothers me. I can see you've taken the original picture outside and photographed it in dappled shade to add the lighting effects. However, the bright spot in the bottom left hand corner has been overexposed to the point of being blown out. This may be your intention, but it comes across as a flaw in the photography.
To add to what Jane said, that will also keep it from being printed.
I wasn't sure looking at the image if it were shot that way or painted that way looking at the page but when the image is up for review before print it will be viewed at the size it is purchased and the uneven lighting would show there and would generate a rejected image.
Thanks for pointing out the cropping issue...I will re crop and resubmit...Thanks!
PS I downloaded a great tool... " Image converter:...It can resize and convert your images into just about any format...I wish I knew the perfect pixel size for resizing purposes...When prompted to re size the only alternative it gives is in pixels...
Yes, I know there have been many threads stating as much...There have been times though, that I have photographed and apparently got too close to the artwork..and when I tried to upload would get the error message that the "image is too large"...I was advised that I should resize through certain image editing programs ...In those cases, when my image is "too large"...should I just rephotograph, rather than trying to resize using the image converter programs?
I have a 12 megapixel camera and use that setting when photographing. It is in the jpeg format. I suspect I get the error message that my "images are too large "because when I photograph the piece I get too close...when I backup and photograph, the problem gets resolved. That's why I wondered in that particular case if I should just rephotograph the image, or try to re size it using a good software program that does not incorporate the compression factor.
Images are broken down into color "bits". A black and white won't be as "heavy" as one full of color. In backing up to take the photo, you are reducing the sharpness and range of color, not a lot, but enough to get the second image to load. The problem might be that, if you crop, you essentially resize those same colors but that is not a given.
If you have Photoshop or Irfanview, you can crop and not resize by dragging (in Photoshop) the square marque tool and then going into Image/Crop. In Irfanview, just drag your cursor and Go to Edit/Crop Selection. I'm sure other editing software has the same feature, I just don't know the particulars.
What catches the viewers eye in your image are the light blotches....the light blotches seem to be the most important visual effect. Why would you want the light blotches to be the most important part of your design?
I have to agree with Robert, the light blotches are what I keep looking at, they seem to distract attention from the actual subject. Looks like pretty good work, very interesting concept, perspective is good, but the light blotches just don't work to me. Great idea, but I find it distracting. Maybe if they weren't so bright?
I suppose you've fixed the cropping issue, I don't see it.
One thing I did notice, what is the blue section at far lower right? From the arm to the edge of the piece. It doesn't agree with the rest of the wall, in color or perspective. I'm assuming it should be the lower wall under the mirror but it really looks out of place. It doesn't match the line of the mirror and is the wrong color to be part of the wall...
Now that I look closer, the one on the left also, at the top it looks like the mirror and wall continue, at the bottom that blue line makes it look like it just turned a corner...
Yeah I'm being really picky, but these are things that jump out at me. At first glance, no problem but when I start looking little details pop out. And when the perspective changes, when it should continue the same, then it really jumps out at me. Unless that's supposed to be a corner...
As for the picture size, I have a 16 megapixel camera and can upload full size shots with no problem, full size shots from the previous 12 megapixel too. I think the biggest one so far was a little over 6 MB, and had no problems with it. Physical print size shouldn't be a big problem, I haven't uploaded anything yet that they said was too big to print. Only have a couple of really large ones, but full size at 16 megapixel resolution is a pretty big picture...
I see nothing wrong with the dappled light. It makes for a dreamy summer day, a wistful reflecting upon ones self.
Whether it would print or not I could offer no opinion - but what difference would it make if you intentionally blotted those dapples on.
May I ask what cameras Judy & Billy are using for such good results ?
Hi Billy... I did re-crop both images...the light concept was "over done".Viva Las Vegas!
Ideally, as stated earlier, I suppose the best way to achieve the dappled light effect is with the paint, not with the photography... but it really is fun playing around with special effects and painting...To me, honestly, the original painting in contrast to the one without the special effects is blase in comparison... I appreciate your feedback on the other issues...I will definitely take a look...they could use "fine tuning" for sure.!
Here are the two images for comparison:
Just to clarify - I also applaud the concept of using dappled sunlight to add a further dimension to the original work. If, however, it requires 'thinking out of the box' in order to accept an overexposed photograph as printed art, I'd suggest that staying within the confines of the box might at times be more appropriate.
I agree; although the light spots do overexpose, they introduce much more depth to the image. Personally, I like it better with the dappled light than without. I think my only suggestion would be to break up the straight lines in the light area in the bottom right of the image a little bit. It will reduce the overexposure issue, plus, since an angle like that would usually come from a window or a door, which would probably be more perpendicular & parallel to the tiles. Even just putting a few more dark areas in it would break it up enough.
Of course, that's just me playing snot-nosed art critic. As a human being, I dig it! Good work!!
Thanks for the support...I have used this process several times with my artwork in the past and have them posted in my enhanced gallery...I have observed so many times over the years the effects of light and shadows on my artwork hanging in the house...and always really liked the effects that were created...and on occassion have tried getting the paints out and actually adding that effect to the finished painting while the shadows were in play...It actually worked...That is why I have stated previously that the best way to achieve this result would be to actually make the shadowy effect with the painting, rather than with photography.
Jane, better software editing skills would definitely be helpful during the process whereby adjusting the background and overall results. To me using natural sunlight and outdoors is the best possible way to photography art ...
My computer is locking up...will close for now and try to continue later.
Thank you Abbie...I was worried about my computer this morning..It really locked up...May have been a network problem...running ok now...Last night Windows installed a bunch of updates and a lot of times they may not be compatible with Firefox...Firefox usually checks my computer for compatibility but I didnt get that prompt when I opened it this morning...I have to say it again...I love windows and microsoft. My computer is 2003 never been to the shop..never had to call for technical support. same mouse, same keyboard...runs like a clock...windows keeps my computer updated...
Thanks again for the compliments!