I think the subject is suitable for the style but the style seems to require an eye for turning a regular image into colorful art. Are there some subjects that work better than others and, if so, why?
Are there some subjects that work better than others and, if so, why?
The answer is "yes," but, I haven't done enough of them to give myself a rule-of-thumb. Obviously, there must be some more-or-less flat-colored areas in the original -- and -- they must be "balanced" across the original in such a way as to enable a finished image that does not cause the viewer's eye to move around erratically.
In other words, whatever combination of tangible and intangible elements in any given graphic image cause it to be "viable" to most viewers, will apply; but to render that to anything other than a list of do's and don'ts and then add and subtract from that list as an image takes shape … I guess that's where the "art" takes over.
Sorry I don't have a better answer. I think I can offer good critiques/analyses on finished images, but as I work on my own, I generally start with a pre-visualization which sometimes holds start-to-finish, which, more often evolves, OR, LOTS OF TIMES ENDS UP IN THE TRASH …
Personally, the ones that are most satisfying are the ones that turn out to be something other than and something better than what I expected.
By the way, I love trying to answer the kind of question you asked, 1ofmany … even if I can't answer definitively.
That's a good answer. The style seemed to require a lot of trial an error and I could imagine my trash can quickly filling up with shots that didn't work for all sorts of reasons.
Havin' fun with a new approach.
I like it.
I like it.
I greatly appreciate that … I have seen some of the photos you posted and your opinion matters to me.
Many thanks.
Excellent blending of the mind and Americana, and they said the imagination was dead, not with you my friend.
Great work/photo Mac.
I think the subject is suitable for the style but the style seems to require an eye for turning a regular image into colorful art. Are there some subjects that work better than others and, if so, why?
Are there some subjects that work better than others and, if so, why?
The answer is "yes," but, I haven't done enough of them to give myself a rule-of-thumb. Obviously, there must be some more-or-less flat-colored areas in the original -- and -- they must be "balanced" across the original in such a way as to enable a finished image that does not cause the viewer's eye to move around erratically.
In other words, whatever combination of tangible and intangible elements in any given graphic image cause it to be "viable" to most viewers, will apply; but to render that to anything other than a list of do's and don'ts and then add and subtract from that list as an image takes shape … I guess that's where the "art" takes over.
Sorry I don't have a better answer. I think I can offer good critiques/analyses on finished images, but as I work on my own, I generally start with a pre-visualization which sometimes holds start-to-finish, which, more often evolves, OR, LOTS OF TIMES ENDS UP IN THE TRASH …
Personally, the ones that are most satisfying are the ones that turn out to be something other than and something better than what I expected.
By the way, I love trying to answer the kind of question you asked, 1ofmany … even if I can't answer definitively.
That's a good answer. The style seemed to require a lot of trial an error and I could imagine my trash can quickly filling up with shots that didn't work for all sorts of reasons.
I like it!
Very nice AMac. I can't see how these enhanced photos can't be of some value other than just here for the few of us to enjoy.
What software are you using, if you don't mind?