My Son cc please

[Kellog]

Thought this would be a good shot to practice painting eyes. It still looks a little too photographic to me.
Your thoughts?
Kelly
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2182/...2780505e_o.jpg

[schmoken]

I think his skin needs to have the same texture as the rest of the picture.

[DannyRaphael]

Originally Posted by schmoken

I think his skin needs to have the same texture as the rest of the picture.

I agree with this observation.

[DannyRaphael]

Meant to mention... It's an adorable photo. Just priceless. Did you shoot it?

[Stephen A]

I kind of like it the way it is, although it might be an improvement if the lighting was more atmospheric.

[Kellog]

Originally Posted by schmoken

I think his skin needs to have the same texture as the rest of the picture.

I was told to remove the texture from the face. I'll try again with it. Maybe a little less.
Kelly

[Kellog]

Originally Posted by DannyRaphael

Meant to mention... It's an adorable photo. Just priceless. Did you shoot it?

Thanks Danny,
Yes it's my photo.
Kelly

[Kellog]

Originally Posted by Stephen A

I kind of like it the way it is, although it might be an improvement if the lighting was more atmospheric.

Stephen,
Care to elaborate?
Kelly

[CJ Swartz]

One comment and one question --

Comment -- he is so good looking and you have captured such an adorable expression that it's hard to think about changes. You have catch-lights in his eyes and his hair is separated from the background in color and intensity, so that's all good... and he is SO darned cute!

Question - I see that your link is called a "static link" from Flickr, and that you've done another one like this -- the image is HUGE on my browser (9inches x 8 or 9 inches) - I've never seen anything like it on this forum (except for your other post) and it is GREAT to see such an excellent image at such an enlarged size! It says it's a "link", but you don't have to click on it to see it -- it's just sitting there like an uploaded image except it's SO much bigger, and the quality is excellent.

So, Kelly, Danny, or whoever understands how this works -- is there some way that the rest of the members can get their images to show this large?

[ratz]

A beautiful shot of a very handsome young man. I kind of like the textured background.

[Stephen A]

Originally Posted by Kellog

Stephen,
Care to elaborate?
Kelly

Something along these lines, I guess.

[DannyRaphael]

Originally Posted by Kellog

I was told to remove the texture from the face. I'll try again with it. Maybe a little less.
Kelly

Upon further review let me clarify. I didn't mean same level of texture everywhere...

The difference between the bold BG texture and absolutely zero texture on his skin to me results in a visual distraction. The brain is trying to reconcile the difference.

On the other hand an equal amount of texture throughout would be overkill, so "a little texture" on his face/arms would be a good compromise.

If the intent is to eventually print the final product on canvas, you might want to leave out the digital texturing. Sometimes a digital canvas effect printed on "real canvas" looks pretty weird.

re: It still looks a little too photographic to me.

It does to me, too. That's not necessarily bad if that's the look you're going for... and for many a real subtle approach is the objective.

That said if the person viewing your art can't tell you were going for a "painting look," then what's the point of all the work you put in?

A few things I've noticed that some of the "pros" (who do this type of thing and get paid well for it) do to further the painting illusion is:
* Add some white space (extend the canvas) on each side and "rough up" the edges. Solid, perfectly straight edges scream, "Photo!"
* Boost color saturation
* Vary the hue of skin tones a bit to simulate "blobs of paint" vs. perfectly smooth skin tone transitions that photos produce
* Over sharpen in places to bring out color variations, exaggerate textures and add highlights

I offer this example for illustration purposes. (It's almost 4:30 a.m., so it's kind of a hack.) To me it doesn't look much like a photo.

But in the big scheme if you or daddy or grandma or whomever the ultimate recipient will be likes it as is, STOP! With such a great photo, ya can't possibly lose.

[DannyRaphael]

Originally Posted by CJ Swartz

Question - I see that your link is called a "static link" from Flickr, and that you've done another one like this -- the image is HUGE on my browser (9inches x 8 or 9 inches) - I've never seen anything like it on this forum (except for your other post) and it is GREAT to see such an excellent image at such an enlarged size! It says it's a "link", but you don't have to click on it to see it -- it's just sitting there like an uploaded image except it's SO much bigger, and the quality is excellent.

So, Kelly, Danny, or whoever understands how this works -- is there some way that the rest of the members can get their images to show this large?

CJ... That's done by engaging the 'Insert image' dialog (the control 2-to-the-right-of the Remove Link icon (chain link with red "x").

Since this amounts to a link to an offsite gallery, it's suceptable to breaking in the future, unlike uploaded files that are broken-link-proof.

Hence, I do not promote its use.

[Kellog]

Originally Posted by Stephen A

Something along these lines, I guess.

Stephen,
What did you do? Bump contrast and saturation?
Kelly

[Kellog]

Danny,
It's so hard going from a photographers mindset to a painters. I'm starting a new one that hopefully will be a little more painterly. Will post for your cc as always.
Thanks for your 4am rework and wonderful advice!
Kelly