Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote (and edited 7 times by time of
> this reply):
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
>
>
> > Compare the above two images. Note the area
> below
> > the sieve.
> >
> > In the Chapuis image the lower 20mm of the
> > cartouche, (below the sieve), is obscured by
> the
> > out of focus foreground side block. Wide
> aperture
> > shallow depth of field. Available/ambient light
> > illumination.
> > Low, oblique camera angle and close focusing
> > distance..
> > Both paint runs are below the lower extremity
> of
> > the sieve.
>
> Please. In the entirety of what Chapuis did
> capture (which includes the heaviest applications
> of paint, the characters within the cartouche),
> there’s not a hint of the paint having run or
> having been noticeably runny.
>
> You’d have us believe that all of the action
> happened in the tiny area hidden by the angle.
> What are the chances?
>
> And you’re making a mountain out of a JPEG, a
> format prone to colour bleeding, which is going to
> play merry hell with what you’re trying to prove
> with it.
>
> Oh, look, there’s extra stuff, which adds
> nothing on the question of the format and nothing
> on why the paint didn’t run in the nearly all we
> can see of the cartouche—so SNIP.
>
> > Having said that you probably can't see it ..
>
> Such is the poverty of your imagination.
>
> M.

I paint my carvings.

I use water based paints

I am painting on a rough surface. Mostly wood.

I paint free hand, which is amazing for a person who can't really draw, anyway

when making a rounded/curved stroke I lightly ground the brush tip and flow in an arc. No matter how hard I try the line is usually thicker at the end of the stroke.

It's all about the execution.


Warwick