Ed Rooney Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 why does turning a perfectly good photograph into a faux Impressionist painting make the image more worthy? We want to sell our pics. Lots of people (especially the general public) like the effect. Simples. Alan I think I already referred to that, Alan: "Sure we all want to earn money for work; that's a given. But . . . the other issue is Is it art or what? Respectfully, Edo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 One of the problems I've had with these "painterly" effects is the way they scale. That is to say the quality of the effect depends on how big you print them and of course how close they are viewed. Up close they tend to look very obviously digitally altered and from a distance they look very much like the original photograph. I'm not saying this is the case with Sheila's pics - just my own experience. My experience too. One of the choices to make in these manipulations is "brush size." So, brush size for what size print? Sheila and others, how do you address this? Aim for typical-size prints? Edit: but then, I guess the same problem applies to manual art pieces sold as prints on POD sites. The physical painting has a brush size, but the prints can be a range of sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Many artists do cross over between mediums. I think rather than cheapen either medium, the crossover enriches both mediums and creates a new one. Crossover opens a whole new creative direction for artists. Try it, you will like it. Talking of crossovers I have seen work by some artists that look like a photograph even when close to. In fact last night I was watching a TV program about Broadmoor hospital and one inmate was showing his black and white pictures drawn with charcoal, ink etc. and which were superb, just like a photo, not arty in the least but true art. Not saying photography is not a true art far from it. It takes vision to produce photographic art. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 the other issue is Is it art or what? Yes. It's an expression of creativity on the part of the creator. The effect may not be wholly original but it's not the first time an artists, or a school of artists, has paid homage to an earlier style. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 the other issue is Is it art or what? Yes. It's an expression of creativity on the part of the creator. The effect may not be wholly original but it's not the first time an artists, or a school of artists, has paid homage to an earlier style. Alan So -- it's the expression (the effort, the intent) that makes something 'art,' not the final product? Really? Anyway, this has turned into Art Speak and like religion and politics, that's best avoided. I wish you all a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 So -- it's the expression (the effort, the intent) that makes something 'art,' not the final product? Really? Anyway, this has turned into Art Speak and like religion and politics, that's best avoided. I agree about religion and politics, but surely the nature of art is a perfectly valid topic for photographers? The problem with defining art as the final product is that you can have no universal definition of "art" because it then becomes purely subjective depending on whether you like that form of art or not. In my opinion the only way you can logically define art is to say that it is the physical expression of someone's creative intention. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Sorry to change the topic somewhat (perhaps it needs changing), but I'm wondering what criteria Alamy uses to judge digitally altered "crossover" images -- i.e. ones that look like paintings, sketches, etc. The most common reasons for failure such as softness, noise, CA, etc. would seem not to apply here. What is QC looking for when it comes to these types of images? What might cause a failure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Sorry to change the topic somewhat (perhaps it needs changing), but I'm wondering what criteria Alamy uses to judge digitally altered "crossover" images -- i.e. ones that look like paintings, sketches, etc. The most common reasons for failure such as softness, noise, CA, etc. would seem not to apply here. What is QC looking for when it comes to these types of images? What might cause a failure? I don't think the intention is to load these type of images to Alamy, just POD sites or own websites. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Sorry to change the topic somewhat (perhaps it needs changing), but I'm wondering what criteria Alamy uses to judge digitally altered "crossover" images -- i.e. ones that look like paintings, sketches, etc. The most common reasons for failure such as softness, noise, CA, etc. would seem not to apply here. What is QC looking for when it comes to these types of images? What might cause a failure? I don't think the intention is to load these type of images to Alamy, just POD sites or own websites. Allan Why not? There is already no shortage of digitally altered images on Alamy, including some made to look like paintings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 As mentioned, I haven't dabbled much in "crossovers," but how would Alamy QC judge something like this digitally altered photo? Could submitting it land me in the doghouse? P.S. I used to do a lot of "real" pencil sketching. Perhaps I'll get back to it in my mature years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 It is all art, no matter the treatment. You can get Topaz like effects in photoshop as well. John. I have a convention when submitting a altered photo to Alamy. In my caption I always use the words "Photo illustration" for anything beyond minor retouching. This includes montages, and major retouching. Combined photos, even when the combination is undetectable, are also include "Photo illustration" in the caption. When answering the Alamy questions. I answer that the image is an illustration. If the image is a heavily retouched, but is a photo, I would answer that the image is a photo. I would also answer that that image is retouched. Answering retouched makes the "photo" answer grey over. I will sometimes use the description field for explanations like "A combination of 3 photos all taken in British Columbia" I want the client to know what they are buying. I am also careful to preserve authenticity when altering an image. I would not move a bird outside its natural range for instance. In captioning your example for Alamy I would say "Photo illustration of OLD MAZATLAN LANTERN Mexico". In answering the Alamy questions, I would declare it an illustration. My experience with Alamy QC is that they are capable of detecting photo illustrations, and make allowances. However in your example I can see some extra futz in the upper left sky. I would remove it before submitting to Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Thanks, Bill. Sounds like sage captioning advice. However, my understanding is/was that Alamy QC inspectors don't read captions. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. As you say, though, QC can no doubt recognize photo illustrations. Shall check out the "fuzz" that caught your eye. Have a feeling that it might be due to vignetting in the original photo. If so, easy to correct. I don't really see myself becoming a "crossover" artiste, but I might muster the courage to submit this one. Don't know if you've ever tried sketching, but it's a wonderful form of meditation. You really have to look at your subject with a clear mind. It's also a lot less expensive than photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 It may or may not be art, but... I got Topaz Impression yesterday after seeing Sheila's video. I put this one up on Facebook and within an hour I had an unsolicited order for Christmas cards. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 It may or may not be art, but... I got Topaz Impression yesterday after seeing Sheila's video. I put this one up on Facebook and within an hour I had an unsolicited order for Christmas cards. Alan Well done, Alan. For those thinking of or have purchased the filter, I recommend this YouTube video of how it works and what brush to pick etc etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDdx-oT07nQ I had to update my Nvidia graphics driver for the filter to actually work and as its never simple to do anything as far as computers are concerned, the Nvidia driver would not update and I went online and eventually found a step by step procedure to force the update and after much angst (and crossing of fingers), it actually worked. But it was all worthwhile and I am having hours of fun playing with this filter. There is a trial for those who do not wish to commit to the $99.00 fee but I have used Topaz a lot in the past and thought it was worth the punt. Here is one of my efforts. "Before but with another filter" and after Sheila Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeRay Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 ^ nice one Sheila @Alan - well done. Great conversion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Luddite me says (to myself) if you want to make a painting, paint. If you want to make a photograph, photograph. Pseudo-painting to me is fluro-Elvis on black satin, artificial flowers, plastic "lawn", fake reflections in photos, plastic "oak" dashboards in cars, and margarine pretending to be food. But hey, there are people who will still buy a fluro-Elvis on black satin . . . just not from me. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Luddite me says (to myself) if you want to make a painting, paint. If you want to make a photograph, photograph. Pseudo-painting to me is fluro-Elvis on black satin, artificial flowers, plastic "lawn", fake reflections in photos, plastic "oak" dashboards in cars, and margarine pretending to be food. But hey, there are people who will still buy a fluro-Elvis on black satin . . . just not from me. dd OTOH, there are Elvis impersonators who make a good living, so why not Monet and Picasso impersonators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I put Elvis impersonators a close second to those who make a living out of impersonating artists who are still alive fgs :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 My work is on FAA and is classified as a "photograph" and not a painting. I also advise that its digital art, impression The frank Sotonian genes in me would say "well, does it matter?" As long as people like it. However it is not a question of what a frank Sotonian says, but how the customer would perceive it. Frank Sotonian has told all his friends not to send him cards but put a sum in a charity box as he thinks they are a waste of money, but still sends cards to some as he knows others do like them. So yes, art, it is. I know from a discussion of feedback on a forum of a POD that some got a complaints that the product wasn;t what the customer expected. I think it was they expected an actual texture on the product whereas it was a photo of a texture or a trompe d'oeuil. Sheila, what sort of words do you put in the discription to indicate that it is not actually oil on canvas, or do you not bother? groetjes, Richard My work is on FAA and is classified as a "photograph" and not a painting. I also advise that its digital art, impressionism etc etc. so the buyer is aware that they are not getting a painting. Sheila ism etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Luddite me says (to myself) if you want to make a painting, paint. If you want to make a photograph, photograph. Pseudo-painting to me is fluro-Elvis on black satin, artificial flowers, plastic "lawn", fake reflections in photos, plastic "oak" dashboards in cars, and margarine pretending to be food. But hey, there are people who will still buy a fluro-Elvis on black satin . . . just not from me. dd OTOH, there are Elvis impersonators who make a good living, so why not Monet and Picasso impersonators? The difference is that Elvis isn't around anymore (at least that is what most people believe) and impersonators are invoking his ghost, whereas the works of Monet and Picasso are very much alive. Tom Keating made a good living impersonating artists, although the combination of toxic chemicals he used and the stress of being arrested for conspiracy to defraud nearly did him in. Compared with art forgery it seems to me that selling wall decor in the manner of seaside 'impressionists' on FWD of America is a fairly harmless pursuit. Nobody is claiming these are original artworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Print-on-demand sites sell prints. Most include an option for the seller-artist to offer the original for sale. Doesn't seem to confuse the vast majority of buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Luddite me says (to myself) if you want to make a painting, paint. If you want to make a photograph, photograph. Pseudo-painting to me is fluro-Elvis on black satin, artificial flowers, plastic "lawn", fake reflections in photos, plastic "oak" dashboards in cars, and margarine pretending to be food. But hey, there are people who will still buy a fluro-Elvis on black satin . . . just not from me. dd OTOH, there are Elvis impersonators who make a good living, so why not Monet and Picasso impersonators? The difference is that Elvis isn't around anymore (at least that is what most people believe) and impersonators are invoking his ghost, whereas the works of Monet and Picasso are very much alive. Tom Keating made a good living impersonating artists, although the combination of toxic chemicals he used and the stress of being arrested for conspiracy to defraud nearly did him in. Compared with art forgery it seems to me that selling wall decor in the manner of seaside 'impressionists' on FWD of America is a fairly harmless pursuit. Nobody is claiming these are original artworks. Robert the work of elvis is vary much alive also in film and on music recordings. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Sheila I see you are saying your work is on FAA. I wonder if you have thought of, or already do, put up your straight (unadulterated - wrong word but I think you know what I mean) photos alongside the digitally altered one from Topaz. It would be interesting to see which sold first, most, or if there was a preference by the buyers for one or the other of the types. Another thing while I think. I don't suppose these digitally altered images would be acceptable on P4M as they require some sharp area in the image, just like Alamy. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Print-on-demand sites sell prints. Most include an option for the buyer to purchase the original. Doesn't seem to confuse the vast majority of buyers. In photography there is quite a problem distinguishing what an original is. With PD services prints are usually made on C-type paper. Currently there isn't anything more authentic than that to print on. Photographers who want to sell in the art market usually either do optical hand prints or make limited editions. You can't call an editioned print an original, but you are getting closer. There are a lot of scams where photographers claim to be selling limited editions, where they are actually selling print editions. The print will probably be accompanied by a certificate of authenticity done out in a floral design. Collectors steer well clear of of all this. Makes it very hard for artists who want to sell online to make any headway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I like a line I picked up somewhere about editions (I will find the reference and add it here) which was along the lines: "In most cases it doesn't matter whether an edition is limited to 5, 10, 50 or 100 - vwey few editions sell more than 3!" There were some other gems like "cameras will tolerate getting wetter than we imagine" but that might predate universal digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.