Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Old Is New Again: Charlie Raggett































6 comments:

  1. This image has a clear subject, which could either be modern or antique. The motion blurs on the subjects are executed well, however, the fence also seems to be unfocused or included in the motion blur. It could be an allusion to the short depth of field typical of wet plate collodion images, or it could have been mistakenly included in the blur. Overall, nice piece.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The subject matter represents an era we might see Wet plate Collodion being used. Remember that the process involves longer that normal exposure times and the horses would more than likely not sit still for that long. adding some blur would further communicate this process and push the image to further emulate a true Wet Plate image.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The scratches on the surface are nice, but needs variation in scratches that are black and ones that are white. The photo as a whole is way to blown out, losing a lot of detail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wish you used more brushes and distress the edges a little bit more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see where you were going with this image. I love the look of it, but remember that the horses move a lot when you least expect it. You need to push a little bit on both of the horses to give blurriness (movement feel to it). And maybe use a few more different brushes to create different texture, otherwise it seems like it was scratched with the same brush. Overall, I love the image you picked :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure what tool you actually used in the crafting of this illusion, but it looks like the sketchbook artist filter quite a bit. Which does give away that this is photoshopped, even if it wasn't that tool specifically. I would recommend letting more of the original picture come through, where there at least some areas in clear crisp focus, that would break the suggestion that this was a filter pretty readily, and would definitely help sell the illusion that much better.

    ReplyDelete