Would you let your work be turned into hand-painted oil paintings?

[chrischen]

Please assume the hand-painted paintings look nothing like algorithmic oil painting effects.

I do paint with oil and acrylic and imo CS6 do a pretty good job for a software illustrating strokes and impasto.

Yes, if a person paints it. Their automatic "oil paint" effects are pretty easily identified though.

 

[e.rose]

I probably should read through the whole thread to get my answer, but you have to understand that I'm lazy and also procrastinating doing my own work, so instead of reading the whole thing, I'm just gonna ask my questions (yay, run-on sentences!)

1. $100... for a hand-painted oil painting??

Sh*t. I charge $160 for a single high resolution image. You're not charging enough. :greenpbl:

2. I don't understand what the purpose of this would be?? Who is this marketed to?

Take me for example... I shoot portraits. How does that benefit me at all to have my photos turned into oil paintings? (This is a serious question... I'm not being passive aggressive. I'm genuinely curious about the thought behind this venture :sillysmi: )

 

[chrischen]

And quite frankly, even if they are handpainted in a very technical sense of "someone's hand put some paint on a surface," the more I hear about this process, the less I would want to be part of it. "What if it's not really 'art' per say, but just a technical process?" "What if it's being mass produced?" "What if it's as close as possible because it's really just someone painting over a print of your photograph?"

All those "what ifs" are showing the process to be less and less interesting.

Expand my exposure by someone using my photographs as a paint-by-number kit? Hell no.

Well at first this sounded interesting, at least to me - I mean as an amateur the thought of making a little extra money here and there was of interest particularly if I really didn't have to do much in the way of marketing, etc. But the more I hear about this the less I like what I hear, sounds to me like they are going to be marketing these to folks as "handpainted works of art" when in truth they are just printouts that have been retouched so they look handpainted.

That pretty much kills any interest I might have, because frankly they'll be advertising a product that they won't actually be delivering if such is the case. I realize the OP supposedly posted this originally as market research, but honestly the responses received about the process and most of the other details don't just seem sketchy, they seem downright evasive.

So yes, even though I don't have a brand I need to protect and no intention of turning pro, well, ever.. lol - I've pretty much lost any interest I might have had at this stage.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]@[/FONT]

​

photoguy99 thanks for the tip! I'll probably try there next time.

"​

That pretty much kills any interest I might have, because frankly they'll be advertising a product that they won't actually be delivering if such is the case."

Such is not the case, never the case, and never implied to be the case except by other people. If I wanted to ask if you guys would license your photo for digital prints I'd be marketing as oil paintings (falsely), I would have asked that myself.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I'd kindly ask you to please ignore the what-ifs and accusations provided by other posters because *this service does not exist.* It is **purely** hypothetical, therefore the what-ifs are irrelevant for the purposes of my research.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I'm here specifically to gauge interest in licensing photos for on-demand 100% hand-painting (just that, nothing more). Since the under $100 pricing brought so much arguing, let's just say the price is undefined. It will be set at whatever is reasonable to produce the 100% hand-painted (not oil filtered, not digitally printed, not child-labor produced, not slave labor produced).
[/FONT]
Remember: hypothetical! If I'm being dodgy it's only because I'm trying to get you guys to answer the question I presented, and ignore the random what-ifs other people are introducing.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Most importantly, given the above, would you be compelled to explore this as a revenue stream if I was not soliciting from you? That is, if you saw this on the internet, would you be compelled to signup and try it out by your own will?[/FONT]​

 

[e.rose]

TPF leans in, um, let's say less pragmatic and more argumentative directions.

SURELY, you Jest! :shock:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Such is not the case, never the case, and never implied to be the case except by other people. If I wanted to ask if you guys would license your photo for digital prints I'd be marketing as oil paintings (falsely), I would have asked that myself.
[/COLOR]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I'd kindly ask you to please ignore the what-ifs and accusations provided by other posters because *this service does not exist.* It is **purely** hypothetical, therefore the what-ifs are irrelevant for the purposes of my research.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I'm here specifically to gauge interest in licensing photos for on-demand 100% hand-painting (just that, nothing more). Since the under $100 pricing brought so much arguing, let's just say the price is undefined. It will be set at whatever is reasonable to produce the 100% hand-painted (not oil filtered, not digitally printed, not child-labor produced, not slave labor produced).
[/FONT]
Remember: hypothetical! If I'm being dodgy it's only because I'm trying to get you guys to answer the question I presented, and ignore the random what-ifs other people are introducing.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Most importantly, given the above, would you be compelled to explore this as a revenue stream if I was not soliciting from you? That is, if you saw this on the internet, would you be compelled to signup and try it out by your own will?[/FONT]​

If this product is 100% paint, not just a few brush strokes to imply paint, I think it's a cool product, and something to offer alongside photo albums, coffee mugs, and such. How long would it take to ship from China? People can be impatient you know.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Chrischen with you not having been a member of this site prior to posting this thread it doesn't give people much info. about you to go on. You say things like it will be trustworthy and people shouldn't worry, but it might help to provide more info. about yourself or your company instead of asking users to ignore some of the comments and questions.

Designer - and this is somewhat OT but is from earlier in the thread - I was wondering if what you mentioned was a process used to color B&W photos before color film was readily available? There were pots of color used to be applied to portraits, I don't think those were used all that long before color film was manufactured. There are also so-called watercolors which are powder and come on perforated paper so you tear off a small strip and dip a brush in water then in the color and blend it into a B&W darkroom print.

But I think photographers/artists most likely would be doing their own work if they're working in hand-made photographic processes or doing any type of alternative photography. If I saw this somewhere online I doubt I'd be interested.

 

[DanielPhotog]

Johannes Vermeer, the dutch painter, was known to use a pinhole projector of sorts, a camera obscura, to project an image of his subject through the pinhole, reflected from a mirror onto his canvas. He would then use this projected image to paint over and replicate as much detail as possible. Many other Dutch golden age painters used this process, but I can see how a digital photograph would limit the creativity of the painter, vs having a live subject to project onto a canvas for the painter to interpret artistically. I believe that JPEG to canvas is not as expressive as live projection onto canvas.

Kind of like projecting your live view image onto a canvas and having a really good painter trace it and embellish it in their style. An entire genre of paintings is based on this concept, so im sure there is some value in having someone paint a good JPEG.

 

[limr]

I'd kindly ask you to please ignore the what-ifs and accusations provided by other posters because *this service does not exist.* It is **purely** hypothetical, therefore the what-ifs are irrelevant for the purposes of my research.

Don't know about anyone else, but I was responding to all the "what-ifs" that you were providing, not other posters.

Every time someone says they're not interested, you are the one who introduces a what-if, such as, "What if the price is undefined?" as if the only reason we're not interested is because we don't know all the details. But when someone wants details, we're reminded that it's only hypothetical. It's quite the vicious cycle.

I'm here specifically to gauge interest in licensing photos for on-demand 100% hand-painting (just that, nothing more). Since the under $100 pricing brought so much arguing, let's just say the price is undefined. It will be set at whatever is reasonable to produce the 100% hand-painted (not oil filtered, not digitally printed, not child-labor produced, not slave labor produced).

Remember: hypothetical! If I'm being dodgy it's only because I'm trying to get you guys to answer the question I presented, and ignore the random what-ifs other people are introducing.

Once again, I don't know about anyone else, but I understand this is hypothetical, and I for one am saying I WOULD NOT be interested. That's the conditional tense. It's used for hypothetical situations in the present and future. I used the same tense in previous answers. This does not interest me, neither as an actual offer (which it is not, I understand) NOR as a hypothetical.

Most importantly, given the above, would you be compelled to explore this as a revenue stream if I was not soliciting from you? That is, if you saw this on the internet, would you be compelled to signup and try it out by your own will?

No. I would not pursue that as a revenue stream

I am not trying to be argumentative. This is an answer to your question. It's a data point. I think the other posters have also answered your question. It just isn't an answer you seem pleased with, that's all.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well like limr I was responding to the what ifs you yourself posted and frankly the purely hypothetical dodge to avoid answering direct questions really isn't flying, at least with me.

In order for this to work at all you would need to be able to crank them out quickly because your looking at shipping something fairly large and heavy from overseas which means a pretty significant wait time right from the get go, and no I will not imagine that these are being shipped in a week or two by magical unicorns.

So in order for this "reproduction of technical details" to occur either you are painting over a print or you must allow probably at least a month and a half for delivery at a minimum.



Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[vfotog]

I'm new here, and I'm just here to get general feedback and the general opinion on my service, anonymously. I'm not here to advertise so I will not reveal the name of the service.

Imagine a service that produces hand-painted oil paintings with 16"x16" ones retailing for under $100 to the consumer. Please assume the paintings are decent quality. You trust the service (some major society6-like or 500px-like site). These are also physical oil paintings on canvas, not digital. So think like selling prints, but something much fancier.

Would you sell your photography as reproduced oil-paintings and receive a commission?


What is a fair commission?


How compelling is this and would you signup to do this by adding links to your website?

If no, what are the terms you would do this by?


Thanks!

I thought I'd remind everyone of what you originally wrote. As much as you've been emphasizing this is strictly "hypothetical" it's pretty obvious that your original concept is to set up a painting from photo service competitive with the rings you accuse of price fixing. You want to offer a similar service but at a lowball price. "Paintings" for those who can't afford real art. When someone buys a "hand-painted" oil painting, they generally expect it to be original. Not just a copy of someone else's creative idea. I hope you'd make sure the consumer knows they aren't getting anything unique. So at this pricing, you're aiming for the Walmart/trailer park crowd. I think you'd have a problem with those of us who believe in fair wages. To paint a 16 X 16 painting that closely resembles the photograph would take some time. At less than $100 retail, the artist couldn't possible be making a fair wage, especially since in addition to them, you've got to pay for materials, shipping, advertising, rent, utilities, and make a profit. PLUS, pay commissions or for licensing the image. Do the math; at under $100 retail the "commission" won't buy you a meal at Denny's. Of course, since the business appears to not be US-based, if you end up not getting paid, how are you going to follow up on that? I'm an artist and a photographer, and I wouldn't do an original painting for under $100. and I wouldn't license an image for lunch money either. And commission... I'm sure they'll be willing to provide auditing at their expense. LOL.

 

[limr]

I'm new here, and I'm just here to get general feedback and the general opinion on my service, anonymously. I'm not here to advertise so I will not reveal the name of the service.

Imagine a service that produces hand-painted oil paintings with 16"x16" ones retailing for under $100 to the consumer. Please assume the paintings are decent quality. You trust the service (some major society6-like or 500px-like site). These are also physical oil paintings on canvas, not digital. So think like selling prints, but something much fancier.

Would you sell your photography as reproduced oil-paintings and receive a commission?


What is a fair commission?


How compelling is this and would you signup to do this by adding links to your website?

If no, what are the terms you would do this by?


Thanks!

I thought I'd remind everyone of what you originally wrote. As much as you've been emphasizing this is strictly "hypothetical" it's pretty obvious that your original concept is to set up a painting from photo service competitive with the rings you accuse of price fixing. You want to offer a similar service but at a lowball price. "Paintings" for those who can't afford real art. When someone buys a "hand-painted" oil painting, they generally expect it to be original. Not just a copy of someone else's creative idea. I hope you'd make sure the consumer knows they aren't getting anything unique. So at this pricing, you're aiming for the Walmart/trailer park crowd. I think you'd have a problem with those of us who believe in fair wages. To paint a 16 X 16 painting that closely resembles the photograph would take some time. At less than $100 retail, the artist couldn't possible be making a fair wage, especially since in addition to them, you've got to pay for materials, shipping, advertising, rent, utilities, and make a profit. PLUS, pay commissions or for licensing the image. Do the math; at under $100 retail the "commission" won't buy you a meal at Denny's. Of course, since the business appears to not be US-based, if you end up not getting paid, how are you going to follow up on that? I'm an artist and a photographer, and I wouldn't do an original painting for under $100. and I wouldn't license an image for lunch money either. And commission... I'm sure they'll be willing to provide auditing at their expense. LOL.

Interesting...I'm glad you quoted the original post because I also just noticed something else that was written in it:

I'm new here, and I'm just here to get general feedback and the general opinion on my service, anonymously. I'm not here to advertise so I will not reveal the name of the service.

Don't these things suggest that the service already exists? So perhaps it's not so hypothetical after all. The questions about the interest were hypothetical ("Would you...") but the service seems to be established already.

 

[Designer]

We're still not seeing any examples. If the OP would have posted a link, a lot of conjecture would have disappeared in the first page. Since he is not going to show us any examples, I have to think that this is not going to happen even if we all went for it.

 

[Designer]

This is probably not the site the OP would send us to, but here is a place that does that:

Portrait Painting, Photo to Painting, Oil Painting from Photo

No, I do not receive any commission on sales. Just curious about how it works.

(edit) After viewing their gallery, I have decided that this NOT a service that I would use.

 

[limr]

Those are pretty low cost as well.

I've seen a lot of street artists do this. But they've got very little overhead And they aren't paying people to use their photos.

Oh lord, did you look at some of those samples??? Samples of Portrait Painting- Portrait-Painting.com

 

[Designer]

Oh lord, did you look at some of those samples???

Yes, and that is when I edited my post to declare that I will not be using that service.

It's too bad the OP hasn't posted an example.