Something different

407370 · Oct 3, 2014

A friend asked me to photograph an oil painting and she asked If I could create an image containing both the oil painting and the actual scene she painted.

To test the theory see below image (the painting on the easel is just a processed part of the background image) This is a random image from my hard drive with a 3D easel added in C4D.

Test Pic:

and here is how it looks in the software:

I am more interested in peoples reactions to the concept rather than the technical execution as to make it "REAL" will take a lot more work but any comment is welcome.

korreman · Oct 3, 2014

Well, I find the background picture dull/boring. It's also tilted a bit counter clockwise. Then I see the oil painting, and look at that, but it doesn't really add much. That's my opinion, of course. The concept is cool enough, but using it on something interesting is essential.

sm4him · Oct 3, 2014

Well, if I understand correctly, the actual image in this post is NOT the image and painting the OP will actually be doing this with, but just a picture to practice the technique on.

Done well, it could be quite pleasing, I think. And you certainly appear to have the skills to pull it off!

korreman · Oct 3, 2014

Ah, sorry, I misread as OP wanting critique on the photo, not the technical execution.

Designer · Oct 3, 2014

Very interesting.

Some problems that may pop up; the sky, the light, and the angle of view might not be the same, but I think the artist will like it.

sm4him · Oct 3, 2014

Designer said:
Very interesting.

Some problems that may pop up; the sky, the light, and the angle of view might not be the same, but I think the artist will like it.

I would think that the angle of view shouldn't be TOO big a problem, as one might imagine that the painter is simply painting a scene very slightly different than the one that actually lies before them. But the lighting is definitely going to be a key to making it believable.

tecboy · Oct 3, 2014

My reaction, um.. I dunno. I can tell you my technical execution.

KenC · Oct 3, 2014

The easel looks like it's lit from the front, almost as if fill flash had been used. This probably would work better if that were toned down. Otherwise an interesting concept well executed.

P.S. Why can't I see the back leg of the easel?

407370 · Oct 3, 2014

KenC said:
The easel looks like it's lit from the front, almost as if fill flash had been used. This probably would work better if that were toned down. Otherwise an interesting concept well executed.

P.S. Why can't I see the back leg of the easel?

This is not the actual canvas or location its just to test the theory with a random image.

The lighting in the example is neutral but a gazzilion options are available and to match the lighting in a photograph is easy but time consuming. I can edit the sky too.

The most important effect to make it look real is developing a texture that matches the real thing. In this case I would photograph a real easel and use that picture as a texture added as the outside layer of the 3D model easel.

You cant see the back leg of the easel cos I forgot to add it to the render.

Seems that i might be on the right track so I will update when I get finished with the real thing.

CHEERS

tecboy · Oct 3, 2014

I don't think many photographers would understand the lighting setting. Have you try render in the global illumination or radiosity in low res.

otherprof · Oct 3, 2014

407370 said:
A friend asked me to photograph an oil painting and she asked If I could create an image containing both the oil painting and the actual scene she painted.

To test the theory see below image (the painting on the easel is just a processed part of the background image) This is a random image from my hard drive with a 3D easel added in C4D.

Test Pic:
View attachment 85706

and here is how it looks in the software:
View attachment 85707

I am more interested in peoples reactions to the concept rather than the technical execution as to make it "REAL" will take a lot more work but any comment is welcome.

I think it will work quite well, and I don't see any problem with not getting a perfect match of the sky, angle of view, etc. You wouldn't with a Van Gogh, e.g. It is a painting. But that would equally be true of a photograph, wouldn't it? That might be another project for someone with your skills: try it with a photo on the easel. Nice job.

407370 · Oct 3, 2014

tecboy said:
I don't think many photographers would understand the lighting setting. Have you try render in the global illumination or radiosity in low res.

I am not sure what you are asking but this was just a quick example. I usually render through VRAY and set for individual projects.

OTHERPROF sorry that I cant seem to get the multi quote to work but ......

Do you mean the same photo as the background?

tecboy · Oct 3, 2014

407370 said:
tecboy said:

I don't think many photographers would understand the lighting setting. Have you try render in the global illumination or radiosity in low res.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are asking but this was just a quick example. I usually render through VRAY and set for individual projects.

I'm not familiar with Cinema 4D and Vray. Pretty much all renderings have these options to make the image hyperrealism.

Hope this helps. Combining GI Methods Examples | VrayC4D Unofficial site - Manuals

The_Traveler · Oct 3, 2014

Speaking with absolutely no knowledge - and thus free to have stupid opinions ad lib -
I think that:

the art/easel should be larger in the frame and be more in focus while the background needs to be a bit softer, so the eye lights on the easel,
the canvas should be in the same or close to the aspect ratio as the overall image, and
there is something slightly off about the perspective; the painting is showing the same perspective as the camera, yet is off to the right. (maybe)

L