NoLongerHere
-
Posts
773 -
Joined
Posts posted by NoLongerHere
-
-
18 minutes ago, William Overington said:
How can I use those effects on my disc design please?
In the physical version the thirteen items shown here as light orange discs are 3d yellow plastic, I used pale orange here as I thought that yellow would not show up well on the web.
William
It's not a style you can simply apply, it's multiple objects. But you only need to change the one ellipse's colour to change all of it.
-
-
-
39 minutes ago, William Overington said:
How did you do that please?
William
I have give up my secrets? Not that it's much of a secret.
A background duplicated. One blurred and I put a few greys over it (soft light I think) might change opacity if need be. The other copy on top and normal as in untouched. Then draw your finger painting with the basic drip shapes. I used the pen and a stroke then converted to outlines and combined then did a bit of adjustments so it wasn't too regular.
Put the normal copy of the background under the finger painting, sub-object or whatever it's termed as or masked if you do it that way, which I don't. So you've the finger painting on top with the sharp background showing through. I did add a smally outer glow on the finger painting shape but not sure you need it.
Then add some bubble highlights at the end of the drips, colour each them to match the background. Finally some grain helps as it looks a bit more steamed up but I think a bit of grain always helps anyway.
I just used something I had already done as the background, may have looked better with something like buildings or a person or something but was just messing around. I might try that.
-
-
Tried to do a colour version of her, unsurprisingly there are only b&w photos. But isn't looking great so I'm not doing any more.
- markw, retrograde and eejits
-
3
-
3 hours ago, Patrick Connor said:
soz, a small lapse
I'll let you off this time
-
Who tagged it as AP? As if lol
-
Was going to do something but decided it would be boring so changed it to something perhaps a bit less boring or not.
- Radioastron, Rondo, stokerg and 6 others
-
9
-
3 hours ago, William Overington said:
Not necessarily.
For example, what meanings are in this picture?
Look closer and think about it please.
William
Sorry, absolutely nothing. I'm not sure if you know what "meaning" means. I'm not playing any more as this is just silly, someone else can if they want.
- William Overington and MikeW
-
1
-
1
-
25 minutes ago, Ash Eldritch said:
@William Overington I wasn't singling your art out just talking generally.
My issue is, if the intention is to impart a meaning and you have to mention there's one surely it's failed? If there's a meaning it should be self evident. Therefore If no one has mentioned it is it because it hasn't worked as intended?
That then begs the question how is the work perceived without knowing of/spotting the meaning?
Does it still stand strong enough as a piece of art or, to be complete, does it require the knowledge of meaning?The only time you ever know the "meaning" is if they tell you, I don't think you'd ever guess on your own.
-
6 hours ago, William Overington said:
Oh I was not thinking in terms of a card on the wall explaining the picture, I was wondering if, from the picture itself, people saw in the picture the meanings that I was trying to convey.
William
Why does it have to have a meaning at all? I've never done anything with a meaning behind it either a real one or made up one (not that I've done loads of stuff). It seems to be a modern thing where some people think that it has to be more than it actually is and that you thought about it more than you actually have. Sometimes pretending that they've given great thought to every brush stroke (or whatever they're using) when you know for sure that they haven't.
To be honest I doubt there was a meaning, possibly after the fact one was added only you know. That does often seem to be the way when you read peoples "meanings" for work. If what you really mean was what was the reason for doing it in that way then that's different but that's not a meaning behind it.
Anyway, if you like it that's all that really matters.
-
13 hours ago, William Overington said:
I notice that no one has yet reviewed the content of the picture, to comment upon the meaning that is perceived.
To explore how the minimalist information in the picture interacts with the typical viewer's experience of landscapes and cultural stereotypes to convey meaning.
William
That's just arty farty nonsense, I hate arty farty nonsense. You shouldn't have to explain a picture especially with made up meanings. The worst I see are people who paint a canvas one colour and then pretend there's loads of meaning behind it, yeah right of course there is. I was just looking at previous winners on Archisource.org, thinking about thinking whether and what I might doing for next year (not that I'd stand a chance of getting anywhere but that's something else) and pretty much all of them seem to think adding that sort of nonsense is a good idea too. It just makes me roll my eyes and skip it.
- DelN, William Overington, jmwellborn and 1 other
-
3
-
1
-
Bit more interesting cloud and some shadows.
-
Not wanting to be rude but have you never seen a lamp in the dark? It doesn't look like that double especially with that style of lamp. Plus why is the poster so bright when it's not lit? If in doubt look at things in real life where you can.
-
29 minutes ago, Alfred said:
For the avoidance of doubt, Marc, I wasn’t blaming you. It’s just that not having a two-door house from that period seems like a missed opportunity.
I love those non-matching chimneys, too! 👍
I'd imagine it was an expensive home but as I replied above I'm thinking it only had one chimney originally then was split in two and got another. Then the restoration made it a single house again. This is a pic from the 1930's. I don't think exposed beams were much of a thing, they were plastered over. I'll have a read and see if I can find anything about it's early days.
Edit: the oldest drawing I have found was from 1831 and it was two buildings back then. However it looks like the current chimneys are later or the drawing is a bit rough. They changed the windows quite a bit during restoration. So I'm guessing it wasn't a historically accurate restoration, windows/glass was very expensive in the early days so small windows.
- jmwellborn and Alfred
-
2
-
1 minute ago, jmwellborn said:
The detail on the roof, bricks and stones is stunning. As for only one door, what about those two wildly different chimneys! Love them. Guess the Tudors were too involved saving their heads from Henry to worry about aesthetics!!!
At one time, even in the 1930's, it was two buildings, so sometimes it did have two doors. I'm not sure what it originally looked like but sort of guessing it was one building and that's why it was restored the way it has been. But when it was split in two it got another chimney. I don't think I've come across any really old etchings or drawings of it.
- Alfred and jmwellborn
-
2
-
20 minutes ago, Alfred said:
Nicely done, as usual. But I only see one door, not two!
Blame the builders not me, it only has one.
-
A local Tudor house from the early 1500's that I started a time back but stopped as I didn't know if I really liked it enough to finish but it turned out OK in the end.
That's it, I'm done for now. Although I did fill in the form to be a Canva creator which is full but if they have any openings down the line I might do some simplistic stuff for that, I don't think they do fancy, and will post them here as long as you don't laugh.
- Patrick Connor, jmwellborn, Alfred and 4 others
-
7
-
23 minutes ago, jmwellborn said:
@VectorVonDoom This is a very elegant and unsuspecting change from your always-remarkable works. The trees and the macaw are spectacularly effective in their "simple" lines. A keeper!!!
Thank you. "Dumbed" down stuff often seems to attract more attention than detailed stuff these days (I'm talking about generally not me in particular) which I think is a bit sad.
- SrPx and jmwellborn
-
2
-
-
Just now, jmwellborn said:
That coke could pour out of the bottle! And we could write on the mirror with the lipstick. Wonderful!
Thanks. I like the first one, I like parts of the second.
-
-
9 minutes ago, jmwellborn said:
@VectorVonDoom Many decades ago we had a Reilly 3-seater sports convertible — originally bright red, but repainted yellow. It was so low to the ground that one could put one’s arms over the door (no windows, naturally) and touch the ground. That car could really hug the curves! We drove it 45 miles in 45 minutes in the foothills of the Himalayas and never overshot the road.
That sounded fun.
Mk1 Golf GTI, v2 Progress (AD)
in Share your work
Posted
Yes, that would be fine.