Thank you all for the comments. Street Pigeon - really appreciate you raising this point. It's something I thought a lot about when making the image - as I had both deep and shallow versions of the photo. Paintings, I believe, run the gamut, although many do show what would translate to a deep depth of field. However, in watercolor landscapes in particular, the distance blur can be pronounced. The ironic thing is that many painters use photos as their source. Thanks again for the thought-provoking comment!
Statistics
Place: 21 out of 59 Avg (all users): 5.9818 Avg (commenters): 7.0000 Avg (participants): 5.9444 Avg (non-participants): 6.0526 Views since voting: 564 Views during voting: 97 Votes: 55 Comments: 7 Favorites: 1 (view)
Thank you for your responsive comment on my comment, which educates me on this tendency of watercolors to often blur in the background. I suppose the paint can be wetter or dryer as it's applied, or for reasons I'm not aware of. Mine is a good example of limited knowledge undercutting criticism, sincere as it may be. Best of all, now I can appreciate your image with fresh eyes.
Very appealing scene, in which you feel as if you've stepped into a breeze. The colors are harmonious with the season, and the mood is gentle. What I don't understand in the context of a painting is the focus. We are used to seeing part of a photograph in focus, here the tree leaves, with the rest of the scene being not being in focus, to the point of becoming bokeh. In paintings, however, and I might be wrong about this, this phenomenon is rarely present. The focus, if anything, fades out very little and very gradually. So in this particular instant, the photograph doesn't convincingly translate to a painterly version. I'm belaboring the issue because I otherwise like the image.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
