lorraine 0 Posted October 9, 2001 This is another one of my colored pencil drawings that I photographed. The original is 22" X 24". What do you think of this one? Remember, it is a photo of a drawing. Link to comment
dustinhenry 0 Posted October 9, 2001 ...I call it the hard way to scan an image. From paper and pencil to negative. From negative to print and from print to scan. Can't you just scan the original drawing?Don't get me wrong. I think you've got an excellent balance of lighting on the image. Link to comment
mottershead 0 Posted October 9, 2001 It seems that one can comment on this image on two levels: as a photograph of a drawing; and as a drawing. As a photograph of the drawing, I take it that the aim was to be an accurate reproduction of the drawing. In other photographs of art works, sometimes the goal is to show the work in a context, and the photograph has some independence as an art work, separate from the original work. That is not the purpose here. However, without access to the original work it is impossible to say much about the success of the photograph as a reproduction, which is mostly a technical matter of even lighting, color balance, reproduction of detail, and getting the original framed so that edges and lines are rectilinear. As the previous poster commented, one can see that the lighting was fairly even across the original drawing. But whether the colors are reproduced accurately and whether the detail of the original has been transmitted is impossible to say. As far as commenting on the drawing itself, it seems to me that photo.net is not the ideal place to obtain such a critique. People here can say whether they "like" it, and possibly they may have a more practiced eye in judging composition than the typical viewer. But most photo.net denizens will not have any expertise on drawing or watercolor pencil technique, and perhaps they will be excessively influenced by respect for artistic skills they do not have themselves. At best, they can comment on it as if it were a photograph that had been run through some kind of Photoshop watercolor pencil "filter". So let me do that: I think this is not the most interesting of your wolf pictures; the situation of the wolf is not very interesting or dynamic. It is a little bit of a cliche and perhaps a little cartoon-ish with the twinkly stars and all. I like the decision to use the blue palette for the picture, although perhaps it needs something more to relieve it. The composition could be strengthened by cropping some of the foreground and some on the right, so as to move the wolf out of the center, as in the small example that I have attached. Link to comment
juergen_kollmorgen 0 Posted October 11, 2001 Lorraine, your drawing is very well capturing the character of a wolf. I like it. Many people expect that images must be drawn with light ... you have achieved the same with color pencils ;) Link to comment
marc1 0 Posted October 26, 2001 you have a wonderful skill both photography and as an artist, well done on both Link to comment
billmagee 0 Posted January 6, 2002 You are very talented. I don't think it matters if it is a photo, a graphic design, a painting or colored drawing. What matters to me is that it caught my attention and I liked it. To be frank I did not realize it was a colored drawing until I read the caption. But I am just an amateur and maybe I should have noticed that, but I didnt. Anyway, one reason for participating in photo.net is to learn, surly I will spend time in your folders picking up what I can. Thanks for making your work available! Bill Magee Link to comment
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now