jamesgott wrote:
quite a bit overdone for my taste.
Its meant to be overdone, as you say, its digital art, not a regular photograph per say, but you are entitled to your opinion, thanks for having a look. Verno
What I think takes away from them is the lighting is totally flat , you have dark and light but no shadow and so no depth , its very important to never lose the fact we are in a 3d world , depth will make or a break an image .
See this is why I don't come here that often. The normal "HDR" or tone-mapped pieces that get posted on here look like complete crap, and everyone raves about how great they are.
But now here Vern posts something different, pieces that have actual merit to them -the second one especially has a lovely "children's story book" feel to it. And a bunch of newbs deride it. Bah.
Vern the processing on both look great, like colored pencil illustrations. The second one is perfect, the first only needs minor retouching to carry the illusion. I'd say clone out the duct tape on the floor, and put a smile on the guy in the background and reposition his arms straight down and the illusion would be complete.
I would generally gravitate against the style regardless of the subject matter. Here it feels even worse, because the processing style seems to subjugate into cartoons the very characters your choice of subject ought to honor. The second one is especially egregious in that regard.
VickiB wrote:
I would generally gravitate against the style regardless of the subject matter. Here it feels even worse, because the processing style seems to subjugate into cartoons the very characters your choice of subject ought to honor. The second one is especially egregious in that regard.
You sound really full of yourself Vicki. I posted these shots for fun at the chiding of my daughter. They are what they are, processed with Lucisart, and embellished with saturation and sharpening on purpose. You don't like them, thats fine, but you seem to have a mean-spirited tone about you, as you do with most posts you reply to. Bah, humbug to you Vicki
vernoinferno wrote:
You sound really full of yourself Vicki. ... you seem to have a mean-spirited tone about you, as you do with most posts you reply to.
Dude I checked her last dozen posts and you're right. She says something negative in all of them except one or two. She mentions she's an English teacher so that kinda explains the uppity 50cent words - but all the negativity? One can only assume she got dumped by the Art teacher.
I like them. They are fun, a bit cartoonish. I think they have a real "Chinatown" feel to them ... where the things for sale are very "busy", things are jumping out around you, so many little items. It just captures a feel that is there for me (at least the one here in Chicago). Some street shots would be cool too.
The name of the forum is photo illustration and digital art. I think these images fall into this category. I like them for what they are. If they have "technical problems" so what. Either you enjoy them or you don't.
