It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

~ Share your GOTH photos ~

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

~ Goth ~


I've been dabbling in a new genre of my art.

I've received a few awards but I'm not thrilled with the 'nice nice' group these awards came from.

I'd like some real constructive criticism from you all - AND - I want to see YOUR ART!

I want to see what's in your head.

Please keep the genre to photos and photo art within the guidelines of ATS T&C thanks.

As an addendum explanation: Goth is a 'study' for me. It's not what's always in my head but when it's there - well, you'll see.

peace
edit on 3541Wednesday201613 by silo13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

You first



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

I was uploading - you got me!


I'm not really sure this is going to work either as I have to drop the pixels so low to get it to load into ATS it ruins the pic quality... Ugh.

peace



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

Nice Pic.

Sorry man... Went to upload some of my darker art and I got the following:


You're blocking ads, so cannot upload images on ATS.

If you disable ad-blocking, it will take a few minutes for uploads to reappear.



I'm afraid I can't participate.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Welllll maybe this will not work for many reasons.

Bummer.

Thank you though!

peace



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: StallionDuck

I was uploading - you got me!


I'm not really sure this is going to work either as I have to drop the pixels so low to get it to load into ATS it ruins the pic quality... Ugh.

peace



I understand the limitations you're dealing with. I had the same issue putting some of my art up on FB. The resolution falls to the point that all of the intricate touches do not show up. Almost all of my art have very high resolutions because I do have them printed on large canvas every now and then. I believe the only way you'll be able to get around this is to post and link from another host.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Oh! Maybe you can answer something for me.
What do you save your pics size at?
I made a huge mistake a while back with a lot of my pics.
Now I'm saving at the smallest INCH size and LARGEST pixel size.
Is that what you'd advise?
Thanks - pm me if you'd like - I'd like to see your work on FB.

peace



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13


You should save according to what you want to do with it.

Like StallionDuck said, if You want to print on a big canvas, the image you make has to be the size of the canvas and the resolution of the printer.


The image that you showed can easily be laser engraved on glass, like a table. So for example the image has to be the size of the table obviously and the ppi can be 254 as the regular lasers can handle that.


But mainly it is up to you, what do you want to do with it? how detailed is needed? How detailed is made? etc etc.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: StallionDuck

Oh! Maybe you can answer something for me.
What do you save your pics size at?
I made a huge mistake a while back with a lot of my pics.
Now I'm saving at the smallest INCH size and LARGEST pixel size.
Is that what you'd advise?
Thanks - pm me if you'd like - I'd like to see your work on FB.

peace


I use Paint Shop Pro for my art. It allows me to save at inch size instead of pixels. I can also save in DPI per the size that I'm saving at.

Currently I'm saving at around 1200 dpi, though I believe 600 and in some cases even 300 dpi is ok for canvas printing.

Think of it this way. Once you open a palate, you're going to draw everything within the confines of that image no matter what the pixels/dpi are. I suppose it depends on if you're drawing from inside out or outside in. As a digital artist, I assume you know what I mean by that


Though the real problem would come in with elements outside of the image that you have to bring in from possible differing resolutions. For this reason, I maintain 1200 dpi. I have gone up to 2400 dpi but that's only when I plan on putting something on a really large canvas.

Hey... the more the better. Just as long as you have the computer processor, the memory and the hard drive space to do it.

Sorry I can't answer any reference from the smallest inch to the largest pixel. Mine works a little difference, though I'm guessing the latter part is dealing with the DPI or PPI (pixels per inch). If so... me.. 1200 to 2400 depending on size of finished art.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

Also as Dumbass said. It depends on the size of the canvas you're printing out. If you want an 18x20 product, that's what you would save it as. My response was dealing with the dpi in the image itself. I thought you might have understood the size part so I went directly into the details of the pixels themselves within that canvas size. I believe for me, PSP uses 300 dpi within whatever size image I create. So if I create an 8x10 image, it'll maintain 300dpi within that image size. I go much higher because the place I get my canvases and posters done in print out at 1440 dpi and I like to have the highest resolution possible. Since it's digital, it's much more in depth than oil strokes on canvas and I just really like the serious amount of depth I can play with. I consider it crack for the eyes.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

I found something you might want to read. It relates the human eye to how much depth we can see. According to studies, 400dpi is the highest rez you'll be able to see with perfect eyesight. But anyways, it's an interesting read.

If you want to see some of my pics, I can make that happen, though I would have to put them somewhere for viewing. Even if I uninstalled my popup blocker and put them here, you would not be able to appreciate them since some of my best work is hard to see without the full or near full resolution. Otherwise they just come out too blurry and too dark to make out. On poster or canvas, they came out beautiful!





First, begin with how much detail is there actually in the original. This amount of detail varies widely. A halftone screen for an old newspaper may result in less than 200 dpi actual. A modern lens on a quality black 7 white emulsion may be 2800 dpi.

In the old days, (the 1990s) when scanning became widely available, 300 dpi was a good starting point because many, many books and documents did not contain more detail than that, and even today, 300 dpi is a good starting point.

For example, at the Library of Congress we currently print our digital photographs using high quality pigment printers that may claim a resolution of 1200 or 2400 or much, much more. But those are microdots of different color merged to produce the variety of shades of gray or color. Usually the printer driver produces a finished resolution between 240 dpi and 360 dpi.

Second, we need to sort out the term “resolution.” Scanners and cameras contain pixels and “sample” the image at a “sampling rate” depending on the distance between the camera and the image. So when people talk about “resolution” using 300 ppi or 600 ppi or 3000 ppi they are actually using the “sampling rate” of the device. But few devices are 100% efficient.

Common scanners may be only 50% efficient; cameras may be 80 – 95% efficient. Thus the actual resolution achieved at 300 ppi may only be about 200 ppi – higher ppi rates are the result of image processing which may give the appearance of sharper lines but which does not produce additional detail. Many scanners will claim 1200 ppi and produce less than 600 ppi true optical resolution. Federal Agencies Digitization Guidelines Initiative standards (www.digitizationguidelines.gov...) are currently at 80% efficiency for a 2 star, 90% for a 3-star, and 95% for a 4-star outcome. Many of our projects for prints and photographs and rare books are 400 ppi at 3-star levels, although some are much higher.

Third, many people want to enlarge an image. We often try to scan film – particularly 35mm film – at a resolution necessary to provide a final print at 300 dpi. So if you want a common 4�� x 6�� print you need a true resolution of 1200 ppi. Specialized film scanners and high quality camera setups can achieve this. Commonly available consumer flatbed scanners cannot. (If you read the fine print specifications, they will often say something like “true 2400 ISO sampling rate” not ISO “resolution.”)

But once you reach the limits of the device resolution and the detail in the original, then additional enlargement doesn’t help. I think I have a couple of illustrations of this in my most recent blog article about enlargement (go.usa.gov...). I don’t believe you can magnify a newspaper image and find additional detail in a scan with a true resolution above 300 ppi.

Finally, Apple claims that human vision is only capable of resolving 326 ppi (search online for their “Retina display” marketing materials). There is a lot of quibbling about that number but most still claim not more than 450 ppi.

In the end, I doubt that you will see any significant improvement in an image of reflective materials beyond an ISO standard resolution of 400 ppi. I doubt you will find any improved image quality on consumer scanners above an ISO standard resolution beyond 1200 ppi unless you scan 35mm film in a specialized, high quality film scanner.

Two final notes. I believe the costs of higher resolution are vastly underestimated. Scan time will increase significantly with increased resolution. Transfer times increase, processing times increase. The expertise needed increases to get better quality. Storage and multiple backups increase. Consumer hard disk drives are not archival devices. Your children and grandchildren may not be able to retrieve images from a hard disk even 15 years from now. Increased image size means greatly increased cost.

And I believe 300 ppi / 400 ppi is future-proof. At least for reflective materials, I don’t believe we will see greater detail in a 1200ppi scan no matter how improved future equipment is.


Source



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

How about moving pictures. I'm a film maker.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12
I'd say that counts



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   


Ohhhh... You meant ART...
Nevermind this old picture of me from like 14 years ago then, I swear I listen to good music nowadays



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Thanks to all of you.

This is where the confusion comes in. To get the resolution over 1000 (is what a printer guy told me he needed to get a good quality canvas sized print) - the 'size' in inches is like one inch by two or very small numbers as such.

I do save all my RAW so if I have to I can go back and fix the size but I've done some huge work on art and then I think I messed up saving it in the right size (as someday I wanted to put in on canvas). I'll post the pic I'm referring too - it took me quite a number of hours to get it 'right' and it's still not right.
I hope it's not too big to upload.

Oh and the idea of putting that photo on glass - I love it!



Even this to get to upload I had to take down to 150 dpi - problem is there's no way to take it back UP without losing quality.

And please feel free to pick the pic apart. I'm not looking for compliments but constructive criticism.

Thanks! You guys are great.

peace



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Sorry, no criticism. I think both the pics are very good. I'm sure they're even more impressive in person.

I've had these discussions on here before (maybe one in the staff forum) and I've always said my criterion is simple enough. For me to appreciate it, at baseline 'art' has to be evocative. Whether visual or written or aural.

I find your pictures to be evocative.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Thank you - and it leaves me something to remember - evocative - keep it that way.


Sweet!

peace



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

Very imaginative and fantastic thought put into your work. It's very cool.


I'm sorry about your limitations on that art. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do without loosing quality. It's like drawing a dotted grid on a balloon that's 1/4 of the way full then blowing it up to it's maximum size. You're going to have a lot of space between each dot.

However, this is a great way to remember to size according to what you want your work on. Believe me... I've destroyed some pieces that I so regret loosing. Some of my best work! I even turned off my auto save for one reason or another and forgot to turn it back on after some time and ended up loosing hours of work. Writing over the wrong files... etc.. Digital art can be ugly sometimes, lol.

Tell ya what... Find a site that prints out digital art work. Find out what kind of printer they're using and search for the resolution of that printer. Choose a few mounting frame sizes and use those sizes along with the resolution (or better as printers will get even better each and every year) and use those as your templates.

I've even gone as far as building and saving a set of templates that I go to (always back up originals) everytime I start a project.

My fave:

24x18 for wide prints
30x36 for large prints
16x20 for decent smaller sized prints

Lately I've been delving into "golden ratio" sized frames. One of the printing places I use online have custom frames. I am experimenting to see if the frames give the pictures an easier, moor soothing feel for the eyes... if they feel more natural. ....or dare I say, one with the universe! lol


Good luck and thanks again for showing your work. Please show more. Oh yeah.... WATERMARK them babies! Never know.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13


Ill take a picture of myself at a Peter Murphy concert in a few weeks..

Does that count?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join