If you have any questions or comments regarding this portfolio, please leave a comment here.

125 gedachten over “Guestbook”

  1. What the very right way you go forward!

    I only would suggest canvas background to the “old Hollander” photo-painting: The Backery, The Shoesmaker, The Herbalist. Even if the background would be generated by Photoshop, however the real background would be better. You can get good real hight-res backgrounds, which meet the format resolution of your 5D Mk-II, from:
    Canvas 5,500×4,000 (6 high quality canvases of 55Mb total)
    Old rough paper 3,500×4,800 (5 high quality papers of 33Mb total)
    All these is in public domain, free for download.

    Also, a lack of your “old Hollander” pictures is the high color noise and the loose of information (which is most manifested in the left upper corner of The Herbalist). I think that more careful processing of the RAWs, and editing in the 16bit Photoshop mode (then converting back to the 8bit mode) will give better result.

    First experience is not always the best but gives right direction to the future.

    Good luck!

    1. Thank you for your comment and your visit. Hope you’re doing fine?
      you are right with losing quality at some places…I must say that the light wasn’t the best at that time altough it was somehow perfect for the scenery.
      I had to go up with the iso to be fast enough with the shutter to get a more or less sharp picture. and I had to do it fast as the scenery was changing all the time and a lot of people where walking in and out the rooms. it was almost street photography 🙂 so I guess that’s why the results are somewhat soso…quality wise.
      anyway, I do appreceate your comment !!

  2. I am taking about two new nicest arts, the “farmhouse” and the “tower”. At first glance, I was sure that Author moved to paint art, while his camera remained abandoned at his home… Then, when watching these arts with full-screen magnification, I found some “artefacts” which could not be therein if being brush-produced. I then immediately opened the file EXIF (accessed in full screen as the file properties). I was amazed when found that these are naturally photos, while the “brush-effect” was reached due to a specific post-processing (produced with PhotoShop CS).

    Bravo! This is a truly target of art photography: the use of a photocamera instead of an artist’s brush and oil colours. What the perfect step in the biography of the truly artist. The very promising way for the future. My congratulations!

    1. Thank you for your comment and your visit 🙂 I am intrigued and wonder what those “artefacts” are that you think of they are not brush-produced?

      1. I aplogize for a two week delay with the reply. I’ve found you erased all the information about your camera and lens from The Prelude, your newest work. Only Photoshop CS3 is still manifested in the image EXIF. Despite all these… the EXIF still contains the columns (now — empty) about the camera and the conditions of framing (exposure, etc.).

        The “artifacts”. Yes, they were manifested in the one of your prefious work. This is minor chromatism which is specific, to be appeared in the corners of the frame, to almost any superzoom lens such as you have in the use — EF 24-105/4.0. If developing the output image with a graphics editor, the chromatism may disappear or be increased (depending on unknown-to-me conditions). Such “colour blur” may appear only due to lens, and cannot be present in a brush painting (if this is a scan of it). Of course, if a brush paining was framed by a photo-camera, the chromatism may appear as a result of the lens. However those people who frame paint art (in the museums for instance), use high-end fixed focus (prime) lenses of Zeiss or other similar manufacturers which is free of any chromatic aberration.

        Frankly speaking, do forgive all the “Pinkerton tales”. The “artifacts” may be present or not. Even if present, one may find them under a microscope (or if trying to find the method how the picture was produced as in my case). The “artifacts” do not damage the art. Be sure. I apologize that I disfocused you from your fine art onto the technical detail. Do not take in mind, please. Do continue your art creation.

        With all my best wishes to you, as always.

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Deze website gebruikt Akismet om spam te verminderen. Bekijk hoe je reactie-gegevens worden verwerkt.