Critique On My Work

You art is beautiful!
I too am an engineer and I certainly appreciate your effort keeping up with art being in such a demanding profession.

thanks drew

Namrata - your artwork is wonderful. Your marketing might need help. I noticed you don't use too many "tag" words. You have a 500 character limit and should use all 500 characters to describe your artwork. You can use Google to help find more words to describe a subject in your artwork.

I use social media lots too. Your artwork deserves more views. Because it is excellent!!

Ray

Really?

thanks for the advice Ray,, will definitely follow it

i got the pic on shutterstock.. the lantern one and wanted to paint its realistic painting.. hope i achieved it:)

Hi Olivier ,, I guess I need to improve my price tags as well .. thanks for the insight

you should have descriptions and more keywords. it seems you side towards a dull color palette with 3 colors of paint favored, green, yellow and blue.


so they don't pop as well as they could. this one needs to be scanned in and cropped better. you need more keywords


this is too small and has glare. if its not for sale, i'd place this in some other gallery, if it isn't.


don't bother with frames, more so, if you do, fix the crop first.


even if your selling just the original, scan the work in.


so i'd say:

1. your crops need work
2. scan your work, some has glare, some is soft or too small
3. add descriptions and more keywords
4. don't add frames, it cheapens it.

but mostly when making the painting, i think it needs a splash more of color, since they don't really shine out. maybe a yellow wash to look like sunlight, a little red bird on a post, something for the eye to be drawn towards.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Many of your paintings are badly cropped. See that sliver of wall on the lantern one, starting at the bottom right? That is a cropping issue and Pixels won't print this. Also, your images are really small and will only print the smallest sizes. You need to scan your work or have them professionally photographed. Before you raise your prices, you need to have high quality printable prints. I love those birch trees, but again, badly cropped and too small.

(I think I was typing slowly on my Kindle at the same time Mike was posting :)

be sure that when you got it at shutter stock, they allow versions like that to be sold. often many of these stock sites don't let you sell it in this manner.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

You are correct Mike.

I would assume since Olivier still retains the copyright on his photograph even if it is being sold on Shutterstock, you would need permission from the copyright holder to duplicate his image, even if you're using a different medium.

You are correct Joy.

oh did not know that .. will remove the painting from sale

sorry for the trouble Olivier.. So is it against the rules to take inspiration from someone else's photograph and paint a realistic painting with it?

Thanks for the suggestions Mike.. will take them into account

Just as you would need permission from a copyright holder to ALTER an image (and even with permission to make an alteration, you would only hold the copyright to the altered part, not the entire image) to directly copy it in a realistic manner would definitely need permission. And I believe inspiration does not equal duplication.

You spoke of it "being against the rules" , it's not just convention or etiquette type of rules...it is copyright law here in the United States.

(disclaimer: not a lawyer)

only the copyright holder of a work has the rights to that image and only they can give permission for derivative works.

No trouble at all, Namrata. Many artists are not aware and it happens all the time. But thank you for your prompt action removing this painting from sale.

Since I had already filed a DMCA notice request with Shutterstock, they will most likely contact you. That's how it works.

Good luck with your art.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll go back to watching my soccer game.

I know you're watching soccer now, Olivier, but I don't understand why the DMCA was filed with Shutterstock. Unless her image is on there too? Shutterstock hasn't done anything wrong. The DMCA is filed where the infringement is, namely here...and she said she has removed the image from sale. Maybe I'm overlooking something.

also Mine was a acrylic painting and his was a photograph.. i guess if i am not selling it then I am free to paint what I like

No, you are actually not if you are going to publish it. Putting it online is publishing it.

As I said, only the copyright holder can give permission for derivative works and he didn't. I see some people still believe that you can change a percentage and it's then legal. That is a fallacy and is not true.

I suggest reading this post on my magazine http://1stangel.co.uk/blog/2014/09/15/derivative-works-when-do-i-need-permission/

Joy:

I meant a DMCA notice -request-. They have a procedure.

I forgot to add that word in my post. I edited it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

It's a really good game....

thanks Isabella .. got it

@joy - shutter stock is like an agent, they represent the image, but they also fight against those that take it and use it for other purposes... its just unfortunate that a rather interesting coincidence that the artist of the lantern just happened to be here at the same time. usually we just find these.


@namrata - if you go to the library of congress loc.gov, if you can figure out their search, there is a lot of PD stuff there in black and white, some color. i just found a site called pexels.com and they have a lot of free stuff as well.

ideally its best to use your own stuff, even without the original guy here, work can be reversed searched


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Thanks for that explanation, Mike! I'm not on any stock sites so I had no clue.

i'm not either. but its easier to let the stock sites sue the person, than to do it for you... but more than that, they control who has the images. if she was a legal person that bought it for a certain use, shutter stock would know and check their paperwork. from there they attack. getty attacks too easily. its usually why when someone takes a work i find on here, its often better to contact the stock site than tracking down the artist.

of course who gets the money after the case i don't know.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

You can just change the background because it's a pretty generic lantern, Maybe change the reflections on it a bit. The great European masters often copied bits and pieces from paintings and sources other than actual objects and being in actual places.

If you used a different wooden texture background (google has a million), possibly add part of a a window frame

If you were to add a feather, hat, flower etc you could make it a fantasy still life




Or just ask permission?

When I was in art school, I been taught to be careful of using others' photos for painting, make sure not to completely copy it, like Mark said add something or change it.

Photographers get too precious sometimes - click click click click click click click click click click click

I was hired by someone to create a calendar for charity combining purchased stock photos of Borneo with my fairy art. Is that legal? I thought the whole point of a stock image purchase was to use it for something else and sell it... If you spend the money to buy a stock image, can't you use it for whatever you want? But, of course, not as another stock image... Not sure if Namrata actually purchased the image or not, but if she did, couldn't she use it as a basis of her art?

I see a lot of people doing art based on famous photos (like Jim Morrison, Bowie, etc...) and some people on this site taking photos of album covers, comic books or movie posters and selling as is... I saw someone who took someone else's comic book cover and recolored it and sold it as his. Seems like what Namrata did is no different from people doing paintings of famous celebrity photographs and I've seen a ton of those...

You have to read the rights you purchased on the images themselves. We cannot tell you

I got asked today on a different site if he/she could use a couple of my photographs to get tattoos of. I thought it was such a cool request I granted permission with the stipulation they take a photograph of the tatts on completion and link it back to my image.

i did that too. they used a part of a design and forever on, he has a piece of me on a piece of him.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

There are possibly hundreds or thousands of copyright violations on this site. But when you sign up you confirm by agreeing to the Terms of Use that you own the copyright to what you upload. Not everyone takes this seriously, when they should. And some people DO have permission to use certain artworks. So no one really knows the background of how or why an image came to be on this site. But as far as Pixels knows, every image on this site is legally here...until informed otherwise by a copyright holder through a DMCA notification.

Doh! I just slapped myself!
I never realized someone would buy a photo, make a few minor adjustments and call it an original painting! Then ask for a critique?
***I just slapped myself again.
I must be really stupid, ignorant or both. I should have known this happens.

technically the painting was original, as in it was painted, just not the concept. i just find the coincidence of meeting the originator funny. and bad timing. but i guess its not like she stole it.

mostly i think people need to school themselves on what stock art is and how its used. and that different items cost different amounts depending on usage, but the usage usually isn't for resale.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Yes your right Mike, but it is an interesting subject to me.
As photography is an art form, would it be an original if I take a photo of a painting? Now if three painters paint the same bowl of peaches all three paintings are original, n'est pas?
Or if a photographer also takes a shot of the same bowl of peaches? Each will have it's own "style". So the problem/ copyright infringement with the lantern painting is that it lacks a certain individuality?

I am amateur in this area.. never studied art that's why I asked for expert comments from you artists. I apologized for my mistake and had removed the painting immediately.
Good lessons learnt from this discussion.Now i pledge I would use my stuff only.
Thanks to all

It was good of you to do so. It's how we learn :)

It is a small world here, I was reading another thread and as usual I check on that artist works and found she has copied one of my painting even with an almost identical title.I didn't contact her because it was a poor copy and mine already sold. But who knows maybe it was just a coincidence we both painted the same subject with the same composition and title!

Namrata,

You asked for a critique. I want to offer some constructive criticism along the lines of a critique.

You need to look at your portraiture including the Buddhist? statue busts. The areas around the busts are not good.
The negative space needs to be much more than a color pattern. Let me see if I can show you want I mean.

This is much more stark, which is what I want for this example.



Dave

this one? if it had more negative space you would lose the glowing it has.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

The glow can be kept on the edge of the bust, and into the bust.

My example is too stark for that work of hers. But that gradient as done now is not as good as it could be.
For instance a totally different color choice for a better gradient could be much better.
The negative space is not allowing that image to pop or come alive well.
The symmetry of the bust is captured well, but the gradient is askew.

Dave

Thanks Dave.. Is the color gradient better in "inner peace" statue

The inner peace image is better. JMO
Looking at how you used the space.
You are not using a gradient for the negative space in the Inner Peace image.
You are using a much more subtle properly worked out gradient across the bust's face.


Additions Gradients for negative spaces as you are doing them are often a bad idea.
Or having a black and white image on a black background/negative space. Or brown on brown...etc....
You need a contrast for the edge of a bust to make it pop.

Dave

no they aren't. it depends how you use them. the sky is a gradient. its used in almost every photo that has sky. having nothing is worse, unless your making a wood carved print, it makes little sense to have nothing at all in the background. i do think that gold image needs better contouring on the statue itself to make it look more 3d and that the lighting direction needs to make more sense. i see at least 2 directions the light is pointing in. as a result it makes the whole thing flatter. i may use a different shade of yellow in the background. it wouldn't look like much if the image didn't fade there.



in this one i'd make the leaves a more prominent color and add shadows under the leaves. though with that many leaves, there would probably be less glare on that head.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

That said about black and white against black.....here is a white image against black......

Namrata,

I have no clue what Mike is talking about.

As for Inner Peace.it is a perfectly good as is. All art is problematic. The stone feel of the bust lowers the contrasting of the overall image.
I for one would not change that.

The highlight on her cheek, eyelid, and forehead help to quietly have the face pop.

Dave

Mike,

The sky is not a portrait. I am speaking to portraiture. You are off track.

Dave

i'm not off track. i'd like to know where you read that a gradient is something you want to avoid.

a portrait btw can be shot against a sky. there is no such rule. if you want to shoot a passport photo you want a blank background. i'm thinking this is just an excuse to post your own work in someone else's critique thread.

without that gradient background, that statue would lose the meaning and mood. it shouldn't just be cut out.

a wood print by the way is when a carver removes everything he doesn't want ink to get on. and usually the background is removed, like a rubber stamp (same thing different material). and that is a look, but in a painting it would look odd. it needs a texture to lead the eye and to focus it where you want it to go.

photographically that image has too much glare to print.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

in any case i think you should do what you think is best for your own work. its best to listen to your own inner voice and not follow rules that don't exist. the only thing i would change is to create a sense of depth in the work.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Why?

...

Best of luck to you, Namrata. I think your work is lovely, I especially like the pastel landscapes you've done.


Olivier, is that your original photograph?

Mike,

I never used the word "rule". I never said skies are NOT supposed to be gradients.
Her portraits are not against skies. I agree on the depth thing, which is why her gradients are problematic.

Why? so the images pop. Come alive in the space.

Dave

Abbie,

I have two images on this thread using the Pixels copy and paste url href. The first one is not working. It is showing up as Fineartamerica, needs to be Pixels like the second one. Appreciate your help.

Dave

DAVID,
Is your image Native American 1 no longer subject to copyright issues?
I'm asking because as I understand copyright laws, there is a 70 year limit after the death of the artist in the USA and Europe, 50 years in Canada.

I am not sure I understand what's being discussed here. I have seen thousands of very high quality portraits, both painted and photographic, with gradient backgrounds. Rembrandt did it all the time.

In the case of the painting of Lord Mahavira, the subject of the painting is all-knowing and enlightened, and like many similar portraits of the culture, he is shown emanating light. If anything, I'd like to see a little more room around the figure to get more of that gradient visible.

keep going Namrata we all start frm the beginning just remember the saying ( practice makes perfect ) greetings :)

when stated:

"Additions Gradients for negative spaces as you are doing them are often a bad idea. " which is creating a rule of sorts.

gradients are used often, you can buy backgrounds that have gradients in them.

it depends on the final look. i don't see that as a gradient. i see that as a vignette. more or less.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

No, the WHY is why is it, every thread I come into, there are people arguing and/or telling people how they should, or should not, do their art

I really wish people would stop telling people what they should be doing and go and worry about their own work. leave an artist to be just that, an artist. It is THEIR vision, not yours

Yes I know this was a critique thread but............ there is technical critique and then there is changing visions

@Stephen, Edward S. Curtis' work is in the public domain. At least his tribal photos taken for JP Morgan.

Dave

Dear Namrata

I think all artists, me included, have some work they are protective of, and rightly so.

A few resources that may be useful if you are looking for images to work from in your paintings, don't think these have been mentioned, sorry if they have.

Deviant art has a large community of artists, free to join. Lots of people give away stuff for free, including myself, for you to use to create your own work, which you can then sell on this website.

There is also a good website called Pixabay with free to use images.

You can also often copy from the work of the masters for practice, many of these are in the public domain and free to use.

Good luck, and best wishes.

Stevie :)

NB Still, ALWAYS read the small print, and do some research, before you use any image which appears to be free ;)

Namrata, another good reference photo site is PaintMyPhoto, I use it quite often and it is a good community of photographers & artists and those who are both. You have to join but it is free.

http://pmp-art.com/

I'm not sure if it was mentioned yet and I'm sorry if it was but I didn't want to read all the arguing going on to find out.

Best of luck to you!

Thanks julie

Thanks Julie

I'd not heard of that one, it looks great :)

You are both welcome :)
Glad to help.

It is not necessary to "scare" artists from ever painting from someones photograph. As mentioned the artist's work has to be different from the original photograph. Abstract style falls into that category too. The painting just can't be an exact copy although the artist that took images from a well known social website only changed the color of peoples eyes and it was ruled in court to be his own creative work! It is possible for judges to rule differently so I would do more than change the color of something.