HOME | DD
nunheh — Blue Dog
Published: 2008-05-19 00:28:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 718; Favourites: 19; Downloads: 15
Redirect to original
Description
Color red isn't reproducing that well, alizarin crimson seems to not be showing up as in the the original. Hopefully better repo forthcoming under different light.oil on canvas 8"x10"
Related content
Comments: 50
look up bluedog louisiana artist guy. YOU VVIN!!!!! THIS is a blue dog. are you a selling sir?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It's a small painting biut a good one, price negotiable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've always been aware of "B;ue Dog" democrats.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ooh. I love the energy in this painting. I know the colors didn't turn out the way you wanted them too in your photograph, but this still works for me. 
It sort of makes me think of a spaceship battle, with a ship blowing up into millions of pieces, and then the thought strikes me that Blue Dog would make an excellent spaceship name. ^.^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mostly I was comnplaining about the Alizarin Crimson not making some of the reds darker then they were in the phooto. The camera didn't want to pick up the distinctions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks...it was painted energetically.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It looks like someone in a red robe is chasing the little dog. Maybe little blue dog took his lunch?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now that you mention it...blue dog has a fearful look in his eye and is headed in the other direction as fast as his motionless feet will carry him!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Poor little guy
I hope he gets away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
He will... he has to spread the color blue around the universe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He will... he has to spread the color blue around the universe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It is still spectacular. Small though he is, I think the blue dog stands out confidently even amidst all the drama around him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. I think the blue dog is part of God's creation when he first began to work with bkue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree about the galactic thing. Makes me think of stars being created, planets being born. Very cool
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Someone else thought it was hellish...but liked it as such. 'Course it ain't no kind of real place, sort of just iin my head then on the canvas. Then again, a lot of epople think I might be from outerspace....an old AA comrade once said "some of us got so far out we ain't never coming back." There was some truth to that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We are all a little "out there" sometimes
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I'm afraid me mor ethan most. Still, I don't mind being me. It's more interesting than being someone else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But sometimes the "out there" thinkers are the ones who force humanity to grow[Darwin, Franklin, Edison, Lister, Salk]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In space there might very well be a blue dog. There might be a green sunrise and purple tomatoes. And if someone says no way there are blue dogs in the Universe, I'd answer that there might have been in the past or will be in the future. That's one thing I like about timespace. You can assume anything.
I don't know why but when I saw this I immediately though about outer space. Like some intergalactic battle or something. Probably because of the dark areas. This is similar to Strange Days because it's similarly energetic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Here's a copy of a reply I sent to one eyes-cat. Comments solicited.
White balance isn't a difficult concept. In multiple video-camera shoots you use it to ensure that all cameras are reproducing colors the same (since white contains all colors) so when you switch from camera to camera you see all the colors the same. There it's a continuity issue. Theoretically it's use in a single camera would be simply to reproduce colors accurately. That's assuming the camera can see them. It's more than likely that the range of colors and grey-scale detection in normal human vision is far greater than cameras are capable of.
I've tried several different light conditions (The only one I haven't tried is the camera flash.) In other paintings, alizarin crimson shows up. Maybe red is so dominant that it somehow bullies the shades of orange and darker reds out? How? Don't ask me....I should send this to the Capatain, who is far more versed in these matters than me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I'll say how I see it, take with a grain of salt.
White is a relative colour, a white piece of paper shot in sunshine would be yellowish actually. Some cameras allow you to 'train' them by showing an ideally white flat surface lit by a given light source. The camera then assumes 'this is white' and records this colour as a numerical representation. Because the camera also knows the numerical representation of the 'real' white (#FFFFFF hexadecimally), it can calculate the difference (needed correction) and apply them to all colours it sees in this custom light.
So in the end you remove all the tint, like that well known red/orange effect that sunsets give (almost monochrome lights).
I think you once said your camera doesn't have that. So I guess you have to try some other stuff:
- place an ideally white piece of paper right beside the painting, set focus (shutter button half-way down?) on the paper, and then take aim at the painting. You probably won't lose focus, and the camera should adjust itself to white. You might have to put more light at the painting than the paper.
- use flash - the camera has it easy with flash light, because it expects white light and that's what it gets
- try to find an UV filter or IR blocking filter and shoot through it (camera might be oversensitive to IR, UV filter can help overall)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll try these...regretably I gave all my 35mm equipment away, and with it all the filters. Is there any way you can see that a predominance of red could cause a problem with a digital camera?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a difficult question actually because there are a few factors... The camera might be oversensitive to infrared or ultraviolet, this can cause issues like the ones described here: [link] and the manufacturer's proposed workaround: [link] basically suggesting a filter. Or maybe something happens in conversion to JPEG in the camera, this can be checked when the camera supported writing RAW or TIFF file formats. If something is wrong with the jpeg engine, it should be okay in other formats. That's two reasons which popped in instantly. White balance and such might be the other... have you tried flash?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Flash didn't work. On the latest painting claws2 it tended to diffentiate the shades of red. Looking at the website comparing cameras it seemed some of the low end canons had difficulty distinguishing red from magenta, so maybe it's something endemic to the canon chip....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dpreview.com is a pretty good site for comparison, they usually explain why X does something and Y doesn't. When I read some review and heard about troubles between red and magenta, they said it was infrared oversensitivity I think. Maybe you could test a filter out at some store without buying, just to check if does anything. Maybe that'd be the missing link. I don't know if I asked but what formats can your camera output aside from JPEG?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know what other formats there are, if any. I'll have to read the little book someday tofind out. jpeg is how it's going to end out when I publish it on deviant art though. Otherewise it's only seen on my computer. In the end I can live with it. It bothered me particularly in a couple of paintings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humans are better at tweaking raw data before they become jpegs.. usually it's a matter of playing around with sliders, but formats such as tiff or 'raw' mode can give you more headroom while doing the retouch. Or even don't exhibit the flaw at all. You mentioned it's a canon camera; they usually provide at least two formats..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I read one of the two booklets that came with the camera...it left me with more questions than answers, but I didn't see anything about any other formats. It's a Canon A530. The color it won't reproduce is Alizarin ceimson, which is a dark translucent red.
Off the subject, but have you come across any devices that that duplicates slides with a digital camera, and not a scanner? I've got a pile of 35mm slides that I'd like to copy?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I double checked some sheets on this model and it indeed doesn't support anything other than jpeg. So I guess the only thing left is trial and error.
I have no idea about such devices, even don't know whether they exist. I think the only way would be to scan them. I'm pretty sure the quality would suffer while photographing a small frame even in macro mode. I guess a strong white lamp and tripod could to the trick but how well I don't know. I'll ask at the workshop my sis opened and get back if such a thing exists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I used to have a slide duplicator, which attached the camera 35mm...the next step up for that model of Canon has a place for a 52mm ring, so I cpuldn't use that even if I had it (the slide duplicator which I gave away along with way with a couple of K1000bodies and tons of filters, special effects filters etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I asked around, seems you'd need a regular industrial photo lab thingie to do that, they have built in film converters (not scanners) but the prices are insane. Sis wants to get one of those things for her shop but the darn thing costs as much as a car. But I might be missing something as I'm not an analog kind of guy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This was a device that was small, consisting essentially of a strong cloes-up lens in a metal casing, a place that clipped the slide in with a diffusion glass behind it. It didn't require focusing, in fact I think you set the manual focus on infinity on your camera. It could be eaasily constructed in a basement with a little more knowledge of macro-optics and a fairly simple machine shop in your basement. My father got it sometime in the 1950's for use on his manual focus pentax that came out before the k1000's that was a similar design. Probably could be assembeled for a couple of dollars in those days. He might have even had it machined for him.
Kind of amusing with digital technology today, that a solution might cost thousands of dollars...but I'm sure a device such as that would work fine on a higher end digital camera that could be controlled enough manually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that's marketing, I guess they wanted to generate a product and they did. What amuses me most in the digital world is that you need to pay cash to get rid of all the automatic features, in turn paying for the necessity to set everything up yourself. Non-autofocus lenses for cameras are still way cheaper though.
I hear there actually IS some kind of scanner on sale that is specialized solely for film (not just a regular A4 with an adapter, and not a photo-lab). I'll try to link to it later when I find it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I kind of lost the dog while painting it....he was so tiny....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think I can see him floating away, altough he looks robotic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Things are tough for a blue dog in a predominantly red, yellow and orange painting. Escape is not easy, and being robotic does not help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And now that I look at it there's a concerned ET watching as Zeus tries to capture him....but Blue Dog seems too fast for Zeus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's also an old man like Zeus or something reaching down to grab him as he flees the overly red scene.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And now that I look at it there's a concerned ET watching as Zeus tries to capture him....but Blue Dog seems too fast for Zeus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ETs I see several but what got my attention was why Zeus was morphing to a banana from his rear side. Shouldn't that be like an apple or something symbolic. At least it's original. There are santa's boots in the bottom-right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thought it was just a red claw, but now I see it's also Santa's boots. Why Zeus would morph into a banana is open for speculation...the artist surely doesn't know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Santa and Zeus probably wouldn't get along in one painting, in such moments one simply decides to become a politically neutral banana.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bananas are far from apolitical around here. They try to occupy the far middle of the spectrum and say "Did you ever see a nut in a nutcracker that fought back?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
this is very very good, full of movement, great use of colors too!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, but I was disappointed by the color reproduction. And still am!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
isn't there any way to fix it in photoshop? I know the reds can be very very tricky......
but I still love that piece!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't have photoshop, but I believe the camera just isn't picking up the nuance in color....there's distinct oranges and the alizarin crimson just is lost and is showing like another red I used. All on that big sweep of curved red and left hand top. I still like the piece as well but it's irritating I can't reproduce it as accurately as I'd like to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see....that's often the problem, isn't it....my camera is also thinking too much...maybe that's the problem with digital cameras.....did you try it at different light conditions, or can you set your camera to different light condtitions? and there is this weird thing called White Balance, which I never understood but to set that could help too....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
White balance isn't a difficult concept. In multiple video-camera shoots you use it to ensure that all cameras are reproducing colors the same (since white contains all colors) so when you switch from camera to camera you see all the colors the same. There it's a continuity issue. Theoretically it's use in a single camera would be simply to reproduce colors accurately. That's assuming the camera can see them. It's more than likely that the range of colors and grey-scale detection in normal human vision is far greater than cameras are capable of.
I've tried several different light conditions (The only one I haven't tried is the camera flash.) In other paintings, alizarin crimson shows up. Maybe red is so dominant that it somehow bullies the shades of orange and darker reds out? How? Don't ask me....I should send this to the Capatain, who is far more versed in these matters than me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0