On the easel...

[GKreindler]

Thanks for weighing in, Jon! I think that in the end, that was something that my agent really liked about it, too. To this day, I'm still unsure what his intentions are with it, or whether he wants me to do anymore, but I suppose we'll see. For now, I just have to see where my hand takes me. Or something.

Jim, you bring up something that I've been wrestling with for a while now. I think that having a shallow depth of field can really make things pop, though I can't decide whether it's for the reason I want them to. I think that George (and in similar ways, Phillip) Burke was a master at that sort of thing with his photographs, as the clarity in his portraits is second to none. But at the same time, his backgrounds really end up being almost indiscernible, which is the big reason his work is so life-like (and recognizable). At the same time, when you look at his work, there's no doubt that it's a photograph - the background elements he plays with to make the portraits pop look the way they do because of his lens. I think the same thing would probably have to happen to my stuff, which I don't know if I'm after, as I would love the viewer to not necessarily think that it was a photograph (then again, what WOULD they think it came from?).

So, if I can find a happy medium, then I think I'd get less headaches. It all comes down to edge, value and chroma control in the end, something I'm still trying to improve upon as much as possible.

Anywho, here's another one I just got back from the photographers:


Stan Musial, 1942

Thanks again for all of the great replies, everyone.

Graig

[GKreindler]

Hey all,

I guess it's been a while since I've posted anything! Well, there is a good amount of new stuff going on, but I can't post it all quite yet, as I'm waiting to get something back from the photographers.

This shot of the Babe from Comiskey in 1918 is one I can share now, though:



I've been working on this on Tuesdays for the past two weeks or so, as it's something I'm carving away at in a class I'm taking at my alma mater. Since doing so, I think I've been able to make some nice jumps in learning about subtle stuff, though it's probably nuance that not many will notice. To me however, it makes all the difference. Always gotta keep pushing!!!

Anywho, the photo was from my iPhone, so it's a little grainy - sorry about that. Hope you enjoy!

Graig

[Jay Wolt]

Graig, That Ruth is awesome. As usual great job!

[Scott Garner]

Graig,
I like the Red Sox Ruth also. It really speaks to me. Awesome!!

[terjung]

Once again, your work is simply incredible.
...and I don't compliment artwork often.

This is easily my favorite Net54 thread of all time.

[GKreindler]

Thanks for the compliments, guys! I'm relieved that you three dig it so far. Since I was trying a lot of 'new' stuff with this painting, I was a bit worried that it could fall short. Then again, any of them could fall short.

Either way, it's good to know that I'm on the right track.

Thanks again!

[quinnsryche]

Graig, GOOD LORD! You have to take a class? You should TEACH a class. You are one of the finest artists I have ever had the pleasure to view. Rembrandt is my favorite but you are a close second (seriously, no joke). That Ruth is spectacular, looks like a photograph. You may be the only artist that won't have to die to have his paintings worth a fortune or admired by only black-clad, self centered weirdos. Keep up the great work and always thanks the Lord for your incredible talent.