When I started airbrushing a few years ago I painted a portrait of one of my dogs, since I have learnt a new technique I thought I would re-do the painting to see if there was much difference.
What do you think?
Posted by Jon Harl (Member # 4427) on :
I think both are fantastic! But the second one is an improvement.
Posted by Rene Giroux (Member # 4980) on :
You're a fast learner... the dog doesn't a day older!!!
Fantastic work by the way. It looks so real, I feel my allergies coming up.
Posted by john randall (Member # 2450) on :
i think i prefer the white background beautiful work btw
Posted by John Deaton III (Member # 925) on :
They both look great to me. Id love to be able to see you do hair. You have a great technique.
Posted by Sheila Ferrell (Member # 3741) on :
Both dogs seem identical. I dunno which was the first or the updated, but you related that loyal 'I love you' expression very well.
. . . I like that there is a little more of the body on the blue back ground, but the blue background seems 'stormy' or cloudy and reduces the contrast considerabley. I don't see as much 'light' happening via reflections and such.
I'm really drawn to the one with the white back ground. The contrast to the darker fur is very dramatic, while the white portions of the face are illuminated and the nose is more prominent, seemingly wet and cold! I like the way the light is used on ears, nose, eyes and mouth more in this one as well.
Either way, you captured this beloved pet's personality so well I even love him (her?) too! Posted by whitey2 (Member # 1265) on :
Thanks for the comments. I just updated the pic of the first painting, the original shot was taken with an old camera and had to lighten the image up to see detail, hopefully this new shot will be better to do a comparison with.
Posted by Rod Tickle (Member # 575) on :
Hey there Niel, they both look bloody great mate!
Well done and keep it up.
Cheers!
Rod
Posted by Suelynn Sedor (Member # 442) on :
I like them both too, but I see a definate improvement in the second one. It looks more realistic with crisper and finer details.
Both are great.
Suelynn
[ August 15, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Suelynn Sedor ]
Posted by Steve Racz (Member # 4376) on :
I'd be ecstatic with either. 2nd one is more detailed looking but both are super.
Posted by Sheila Ferrell (Member # 3741) on :
That looks WAY different than the first white-back-ground photo. Add it to the two above would'ja? Posted by Duncan Wilkie (Member # 132) on :
Ruff... Posted by Ricky Jackson (Member # 5082) on :
Man, that dog looks 5 years younger! ...that's 35 years in doggie years.
Posted by Ian Stewart-Koster (Member # 3500) on :
Very nice Neil! There's more clarity in the second one, and in his old age, he's developed some false teeth
How long did the second one take?
Would you describe the new technique you've learnt?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)