Auto' - Watercolour Portrait.
Posted 28 May 2007 - 10:22 PM
I think you should.
I've admired your P/shop work, and been pretty impressed with it to say the least.
In fact it's so good, and as a Brit' - and not being familiar with the vagaries of Muscle car detailing or styles, I'm unable to distinguish the real from a phantom styling exercise such is the quality of your work.
Jarius's work however is familiar to me from published pages and I'm able to read it as Artwork, always a pleasure.
My own skills with P/shop are non-existant, I do actually have a copy but it makes no sense, rhyme or reason to me. In fact the few times I've attempted anything I've given up and simply used a pencil.
I do have a reason for attempting this commision though, and perhaps I might be able to speak of it at a later point should all go well? Sorry to be so enigmatic, but I don't want to put the Hex on anything.
Suffice to say it's all about the usual reign of Artistic impecuniosity, and the feeble and pathetic attempts to sneak unseen around it, I'm sure all of us trying to put a crust on our table from our endevours understand that statement?
Posted 29 May 2007 - 06:51 AM
(Sorry to "lecture"...but I didn't pay thousands of dollars for that college education for nothin"!) :wink:
Then you must have gone to a better school than I did!
Posted 01 June 2007 - 04:38 AM
Here's a further update on the auto' portraits.
I've managed to muster a reasonably believable background, and have just completed the Austin 7.
I feel compelled to ask for a little leeway here as the process of putting the pic' on the web really takes it out of the clarity etc.
Although I'm going to have to take a look at those headlights - somethings amiss? Frightening what these crippling enlargements will throw up.
Here you go then................
All the best till next time.................... Andi.
Posted 01 June 2007 - 04:42 AM
Posted 01 June 2007 - 05:47 AM
The strange thing is when I went back down to check the headlights and "adjust" them............ they look quite fine and dandy. Even the missus said so!!!
It just appears from the pic' that the left one is leaning back and in?
I'm gonna' live with it awhile. What I have found frustrating is the way the pic's are appearing on the screen, I've tried taking the shots with flash and without, my camera even has a "slow" [infill only] feature. Yet everything seems terribly washed out and the mark making looks very inarticulate, with a lot of the underpainting coming to the surface. Without seeming immodest, there's a greater naturality to the image when seen in the flesh, of course it's only about two inches long there!
Perhaps there might be someone reading this that has any experience with reproducing artwork on the web to its best effect.
Posted 01 June 2007 - 06:09 AM
Posted 01 June 2007 - 08:32 AM
Thanks for trying, I've attempted something similar within "Fireworks", part of my web building package. With pretty much the same results - a touch too far the other way.
I think the main problem is watercolour is a transparent medium and as any light source travels through the paint - hits the white paper and comes out again, it allows the camera to read all sorts of discrepencys that arn't visible to the naked eye. I know when work goes to be digitally scanned for limited edition prints etc the file size is humungous - in the region of a 100megs or the like, it's then manipulated by a technician who is seriously au-fait with image manipulation software. Even then it takes several proof prints and adjustments before it's considered good to go.
So, using a recreational camera, and keeping the file size under a 100k as a courtesy is parhaps hoping for a tad too much?
Just a bit frustrating that the landscape is OK - ish but the bit everyone is interested in [the cars] are reading less than they really are - or is this all starting to sound like an excuse???.......... smiling now.
More as it's ready......... just winding myself up to start that Traction Avante!!!!
Posted 01 June 2007 - 09:47 AM
I wouldn't worry about color that you see on your computer.
Unless you calibrate your monitor on a regular basis (I do it every three weeks), what you see is NOT going to be the same that someone else sees on their screen.
Calibration and color correction on computers is science and art mixed together, with sometimes unpleasant results.
I have spent many years learning what I can on this, and basically the adage is true:
"What you see is not what you'll get"
Heh, wait, I just made that up.
My two cents....
anyone want change?
Posted 13 June 2007 - 02:15 AM
We're getting close to a finish now with the Traction all but complete.
Here's a single shot of the Citroen, although it's been planted it now needs to be stitched into the road surface, a few tickles here and there and then some time spent balancing the perspective to make sure it reads consistantly as a complete image.
Here you go then........... as ever, even with a bit of fiddling a lot of the subtlety hasn't made it to the screen but you should definately get the flavour. Also notice how the level of detail has increased along with necessary contrast levels in order to reinforce the notion of distance within the painting.......... an element we were discussing earlier. [I've just previewed the post only to notice that's one of the subtleties lost!! - oh well].
As ever............cheers for now,
Posted 13 June 2007 - 04:21 AM
Posted 18 June 2007 - 06:21 AM
I'll live with it for a while but I'm pretty much calling this one done. I did try and shoot at a higher pixel rating, plus mess about with lighting corrections etc,. But it appears that by the time I'd optimised it for about 100Kb it looks even worse than the previous postings?? - You'll have to take my word for it! But, it does look a lot better in the flesh, The commisionee has Ok'd it so apart from a little nibbling here and there to satisfy myself it's on to the next one.
All the very best................ Andi [Yad']
Posted 18 June 2007 - 07:14 AM
Just out of curiosity, how many hours do you have invested?
Posted 18 June 2007 - 12:17 PM
Thanks for your continued interest. I'm embarrassed to admit that I've about 80 hours into this piece as on the screen it looks pretty amateurish.
In fact I'm quite appalled at the way it's reproduced - although this does seem like a bad workman etc! I must really try and get sorted as to posting a much more representable image if I try to do this again.
For those interested in such things it's been painted on 300gram Schollershammer #12, hot pressed paper, Windsor and Newton pigment with permanent white Gouache for highlights and tinting.
Cheers all.................... Andi.
Posted 18 June 2007 - 03:12 PM
Very very nice! I am impressed with the results and hope to someday see the original.
And.... thank you for sharing the process with us.
Posted 22 June 2007 - 06:01 AM