Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike McCarty
Ant,
You have a much keener eye than I. I would say that the color, apart from the composition, is well within the window of believability.
There is a window, is there not? After all, reality changed for him every second, just as it does for us. Can anyone hope to achieve a perfect moment when that moment will not stand still? Even when It stands still in a photo, as artists we must be given some latitude of believability.
|
Mike,
in my opinion the work is still a nice painting, but some parts resemble to a work from photo and since it was B&W at that time it seems to me he had to make up some colors. Maybe he had the real objects close, but the photo-reference dependence is clearly showing in the light-blue fabric of the little girl's dress. I also find the shadow of the face a bit too warm. Perhaps this digital reproduction is not making justice (?).
Ant
|
Ant, et al,
First of all I don't have much faith in this reproduction. Sometimes you can get good ones and sometimes not. This one seems dark and I don't have my good edit program available to make it better. I could lighten it up some, but as far as making color adjustments that would seem to be totally arbitrary.
But apart from that -- Let's say that you are right on the money with your analysis. It seems like a very long way to stretch your rubber band, but let's say that your assertions could be proved 100% right. My questions are these:
First of all, who should care? Apart from a couple of portrait forum jockeys like you and I who deal in this sort of minutia, who should care?
Which leads me to this question: Given your proven facts, do you think less of this painting, or more? Or, given that what is seen is within an acceptable range of plausibility, would these facts have no bearing on the quality at all?
Threaded Mode
