RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Studio > Contests
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Contests Retouching contests to challenge your skills and learn from others. Prizes for the winners!

Sep 05 Contest Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #111  
Old 09-24-2005, 03:28 PM
Shalford Shalford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Solihull - United Kingdom
Posts: 67
It all seems to be getting a little frayed at the edges this time around.

It was a very ambitious contest; a restoration (a difficult one at that) and then to undo all that hard work and turn it into an oil painting.
I personally think that everyone’s interpretation of “oil painting” is wide and diverse.
We all see things in different ways!

As for the amazement at what is being voted for, as I said, we all see differently and have different tastes. If we want a contest to be judged by a panel of experts, then the fun and friendliness goes out of the window, apart from escalating costs.

I believe it’s possible that some of us could be persuaded by familiar names, and possibly a little embarrassed to vote for someone new, well maybe not embarrassed, but we like to go with the flow.
I don’t have any preference to a voting system (public or private), but what about some way of having anonymous entries, A, B, C, D etc, then public votes. But it would probably throw up horrendous problems – name revealed when cursor is hovered over etc. (just a thought)

We have got to remember that this is for fun and for learning, and I for one have learnt more from this site than anywhere else. I don’t want to get to a situation where the moderators feel it’s not worth the hassle.

Let’s appreciate what we have got here.

Got to go now and upset someone with my votes.

All the best everyone
Reply With Quote top
  #112  
Old 09-24-2005, 03:59 PM
Caitlin's Avatar
Caitlin Caitlin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraellin
actually, the glasses are not pince-nez. pinze-nez has no frame going to the ears on either side. they are supported solely by the nose.

i also made the mistake of adding in a wire frame to the left ear. there is NO evidence in the original that such existed.
I think you mean ARE pince-nez there Craig? Absolutely agree, I was surprised where I saw so many glasses appear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraellin
and, i was also somewhat surprised at the voting this time. to me, the voting criteria as stated in the rules was... restore and make it in the style of an oil portraiture. this is a fairly distinct style. the rules stated: "Restore and turn the file into full-color oil painting." now, there is some leeway in that, but to me it meant make it like those old oil portraits you see hanging above a mantel or in a library of a wealthy home. they are generally a fairly heavy oil, often done on a dark background and often with a fairly gaudy, gilded, large gold frame. the portraits were expensive. they were commissioned only by the wealthy. and, they were commissioned only to well known artists who could capture the essence of person's face. they were not, therefore, impressionistic or some other style that would not capture what a person really looked like. they were close approximations of the person, done in a fairly classic style. i mean, why else would we first restore and then paint.

Craig
Regarding the 'controversy' about oil paintings etc, I do feel it could be helpful to have more explicit guidelines for some of these contests. This has come up in other challenges what a term meant, and long and sometimes heated debate has ensued. I know T Paul wants to keep the contests open to creativity, but in cases like this I think that voting and entry would be fairer if it was spelt out clearly what criteria should be voted on, and for instance what 'oil painting means.
Reply With Quote top
  #113  
Old 09-24-2005, 04:04 PM
Caitlin's Avatar
Caitlin Caitlin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by T Paul
Craig,

I like the idea of a two stage contest. Perhaps the first month is your initial entry and a week for those to critique and offer suggestions and then you have the second month to makes changes and then vote on the winner.

Are there others interested in this idea?
Yes it sound like an interesting idea T Paul, though I think you would need to think through the process carefully to ensure thre were no downsides (like entries that were not getting high praise choosing not to enter therefore your entry pool dwindling further) If you were to do it I would suggest it as an occasional, not every contest - for those that require skill - like restorations and traditional colourisation I think it would be fair, those that are largely creative (like the last car contest) I think it would not be as appropriate.
Reply With Quote top
  #114  
Old 09-24-2005, 04:45 PM
Loverly's Avatar
Loverly Loverly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 109
Blog Entries: 1
Eye glasses mystery!

Quote:
Entries are judged based on the misconceptions of other entrants... for example(and I dont mean to be picking on any one person in particular) but there have been comments about not completing the mans glasses, I examined the full rez picture carefully and could find no evidence that the man is wearing glasses, rather, I believe they are spectacles as there is nothing to suggest that anything attached to the eyepieces is also attached to the ear (see attached). I'm not meaning to pick on anyone, just demonstrating a point.
Nancy,
The reason for my comments on the incomplete glasses were not based on the right side of the mans face that is mostly gone but rather on the left side were I see clearly a hindge for the ear piece.
Squinting helps one to see more details sometimes on these tough photos.

Loverly
Attached Images
File Type: jpg hindge.jpg (48.7 KB, 13 views)
Reply With Quote top
  #115  
Old 09-24-2005, 04:48 PM
Caitlin's Avatar
Caitlin Caitlin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by T Paul
The Discussion thread is open to "discussion" so those that did not enter (as well as those who did) feel free to discuss what you liked or didn't like about the various entries. You can even put how you would have voted here. The votes won't count, but it allows the participants to see what people thought of their entries.
Ok, well if you are sure T Paul...

Here's my votes (non-counting)

I was really blown away by how good a couple of the entries were - quite superb I thought, and showing a lot of skill. These were:

1. Loverly. It looked lovely - just like a traditional oil, was an excellent likeness, and though it's true the frame made the actual picture a bit small to judge, it also gave just the right feel. A pity he is wearing full glasses though.

2. Doug Colwell. Also a terrific likeness, and expertly done. I just didn't like the painting style as much, and as someone has pointed out the paper texture is wrong for an oil.


After this it got harder - I thought there were about 8 runner-ups, but here is an attempt to rank them:

3. Bob Down. (An Australian I presume? lol) Nice overall effect, Just a pity again with the glasses, and also a missing lower lip, so some problems with the restore phase.

4. kshultz. Fair likeness, but looking a bit cutout, and again the paper texture and lack of brushstrokes let it down as an oil painting.

5.Freddieanne/Shalford. I give up, can't pick between these two.....

Honourable mentions:

Cazubi - Really nice looking painting and excellent paintwork (probably the best), but not a good likeness.

Kiska
- I actually really liked this interesting attempt, but it was not a good likeness.
Reply With Quote top
  #116  
Old 09-24-2005, 04:54 PM
Caitlin's Avatar
Caitlin Caitlin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loverly
Nancy,
The reason for my comments on the incomplete glasses were not based on the right side of the mans face that is mostly gone but rather on the left side were I see clearly a hindge for the ear piece.
Squinting helps one to see more details sometimes on these tough photos.

Loverly
This is clearly one of those artistic judgements in restoration - personally while I see what you are referring to, it could easily be dirt on the photo, as well as the fact that pinze-neze can have a hinge there to open the frames to insert lenses (see here). I consider that the other side is not so damaged that you would not see a shadow at least of the glasses arm if it was there.

Last edited by Caitlin; 09-24-2005 at 05:03 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #117  
Old 09-24-2005, 05:03 PM
Loverly's Avatar
Loverly Loverly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 109
Blog Entries: 1
basis for voting

Caitlin,
Thank for the ghost vote!
My voting was not based on if they had the completed glasses or not. It was only my opinion as I stated at the begining of the post so it doesn't really matter to me about the glasses really. I based my voting on if he looked like the original photo of the old guy or didn't.


Loverly
Reply With Quote top
  #118  
Old 09-24-2005, 11:48 PM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
caitlin,

no, i did mean 'not'. i do not believe these are true pinze-nez. there is a line right in the right place on the glasses on his right side that is partially covered with a white smudge. the line is just the right thickness for a wire, just in the right place, going back towards the ear at just the right angle and ending just at the side of his head where it disappears. and, there is no visual evidence on the other side of a corresponding wire. therefore, these are not traditional glasses, nor are they pinze-nez. someone mentioned 'spectacles'. maybe that's right; i dont know. but they dont appear to be pinze-nez.

but, as we all know in restoration/reconstruction, every line, every smudge, every dot is subject to question. so, pinze-nez, not pinze-nez...it's sort of moot. the real question was about the other side of the head and the implanted wire there.

now, i'd also like to qualify my post about oil portraits. whereas i have a certain idea of what that is and what that means to me, i by certainly no means mean to say that's what everyone's idea necessarily is. but, being it was my vote, i could only go on my criteria and understanding of t_paul's criteria. but, like i did say in my first post about the voting, there's always leeway.

the only additional qualifier made on this subject was by t_paul in a later post on the rules. i think it had something to do with a more radical style of painting, which re-inforced to me the idea of more traditional styles.

there's always going to be debates on the contests. that's just part and parcel with a contest. and whereas i was looking for more traditional styles of oil portraiture, i did not disqualify anyone's work based on a less traditional. but, i did disqualify one that used a less traditional style where it didnt meet the restoration part of the contest. there just wasnt enough detail for a 'portrait'.

and that brings me to another point. has anyone ever commissioned or heard of a commissioned portrait of a real individual where the person wanted it done in impressionistic or modern or cubist? 'portrait' itself tends to lend to the definition of the work. yeah, i know, there are always exceptions, especially if you also include self-portrait. but the time period of the picture, the stated criteria, the stately appearance of the gentleman, the fact that it was a portrait, the fact that you had to restore first...these just all led me to believe 'oil portrait in the classic, traditional style'.

but, i would also grant that the rules were broad enough to certainly allow for more than that. i dont have a problem with it and i had no problem with it when i voted. in fact, i'm rather glad some didnt follow the traditional. vive la' difference!

Craig
Reply With Quote top
  #119  
Old 09-25-2005, 02:42 AM
Doug Colwell Doug Colwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alberta
Posts: 157
My two bits. The thing on the left side of the 'specs' is consistant with the little stem that was commonly found on one side of the pince-nez's I googled (I'm assuming it was something to grab onto when removing them, and something to tie a string or cord to). Wire frames would head up to the ears (above eye level) and the thing in our picture looks to me to be heading down towards the middle of his ear.

As for thick oil paint or canvas showing through, I'm claiming my artist was too poor to waste paint.
Reply With Quote top
  #120  
Old 09-25-2005, 07:03 AM
kschulz's Avatar
kschulz kschulz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 138
My two cents...I agree with you Doug. My first impulse was to recreate ear stems for the glasses, but when I looked more closely at the left side, the 'dark area' seemed lower on the frames than it should be for a stem hinge. Then comparing to the right side, I came to the conclusion that there are no ear stems at all. I do not believe the right side is so obliterated as to completely remove all evidence of a stem, if one in fact existed at all. I concluded these must be hard-bridge pince-nez style spectacles and found very similar (though not exact) examples on the net. Also, this style was very popular during the time period of this photo.

As for the dark area on the left - many of the examples I viewed, though not all, had a small nub or loop on the frame for attaching what was referred to as a "safety strap". This dark area could be evidence of something like that, or it could just be a smudge. Arbitrarily, I went with the latter.

Even with the artistic style and voting ambiguities some have expressed, this has been an educational project, just for the research and analysis it inspired. Fun stuff

- Kurt
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Studio > Contests


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sep 07 Contest Discussion T Paul Contests 60 10-03-2007 04:06 PM
Sep 07 Contest T Paul Contests 62 10-01-2007 04:25 PM
Sep 05 Contest Votes T Paul Contests 22 10-01-2005 10:27 AM
Sep 05 Contest T Paul Contests 24 10-01-2005 10:20 AM
March 05 Contest Entries T Paul Contests 47 06-30-2005 05:44 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved