Pic attached. Am I dumb? I can't work this out.

[sadkoala]

I've recently messaged an artist who does commissions with 2 old pictures attached asking them if they are able to work with that resolution of photo and create a piece using them.

The reply I got is in the pic attached. Am I correct in thinking they are saying they cannot do it? Or are they just covering their own backs and stating upfront it might not be as detailed as some of their other pieces if image isn't high resolution?

I feel really dumb and like my brain isn't working. Help?

The pictures aren't blurred but I suppose if you wanted to zoom in on them to get the super fine detail they would be as they are rather old and taken with a film camera.

Why has the groom got withered feet?

@MirriVan

but then she also lists 'love' as a material, so I think she may just be a Little Like That

I would have thought a blurred picture would be absolutely fine for an true artist to interpret and paint from scratch. You are buying the artists work and style, not a photocopy of a picture.

It wouldn't look photo accurate like the obviously scanned in images this one does, but that would be the beauty of the end product.

If she is charging less than a couple of hundred £ and doing it on a commercial basis its an obvious scan. A hand painted commissioned piece of art, even from a relatively unknown would be much higher and take time to produce.

That's just a photoshop job, hence why the resolution matters so much. A good photoshop artist should be able to enhance the resolution or improvise. Think you should look elsewhere.

Resolution isn't a factor if they are recreating the image by hand. Obviously more detail is better, but it's not a huge deal.

HOWEVER...

If they are using a Photoshop effect / filter then the resolution matters and the better the resolution, the better the end result (even though the end result is a watercolour effect that lacks detail.

I would say it's VERY misleading if it's being marketed as a real watercolour, because it's not.

Gosh, I think she has already photoshopped the version and reckons it looks better with the pencil effect.

If you want a true painter, then don't be scammed by some digital crap.

In my head, a painting of a photo doesn't feel or look right to me anyway. You need to pose for proper portraits! Ala the Queen!

I work in Photoshop to an advanced level - some old photos taken on phones or poor quality scans just won't work well. There are some techniques to improve things, but you can't do miracles.

It's one of the biggest bugbears that people provide low quality images and expect them to be suitable for print (magazines, posters etc).

Can you have the photo restored? I don't know how they do that, but the results seem good.

Send me the original pic, and I'll recreate what they are doing - free of charge, just to prove a point.

I don't have a problem with someone doing it and making a living from it, but they need to be honest and not charge much for the 'art' side of things, just for the printing, canvas and frame and make an honest living, but running an image through a filter with a little bit of tweaking is not artistic expertise.

sadkoala the artist's work is almost definitely digitally based even if they add watercolours over the top to make it appear handpainted.

An artist painting purely by hand wouldn't have given you the same warning, it would have been more around "the detail that's missing I'll have to compensate for using my creativity" rather than the resolution is too poor.

Resolution is only a pain in the arse for people like me that use and create images in Photoshop and Illustrator because you can't upscale resolution. An artist painting by hand can upscale anything they want.

If you have reasonable photo-editing software and reasonable photo-editing skills, you can produce images like this yourself with a bit of imagination. Then print onto watercolour paper and put in a frame. I've done several.

To me it's either a painting from life or a photo. Both in and of themselves, require a certain level of skill and expertise and artistic flair. I don't agree with combining the two. My mother is in an art class and frequently paints pictures of postcards. I don't see the point!

Is painting a picture of a postcard any different than playing someone else's music?
They probably get enjoyment from the act of painting, and thus the final artwork isn't really the goal - and they don't want the angst of what to paint, or may not have the skill to paint real life, so 'copying' something they like is pleasure enough.

I paint animal portraits from photographs (all by hand, no photoshopping malarkey involved) and in my experience, most people want as faithful a copy of their photograph as you can get - they like to be able to recognise their pet. It takes time and a fair bit of skill to achieve that.

To be honest, I'm a bit gobsmacked that anyone could use photoshop like this and claim to have 'painted' a picture. Just out of interest, what sort of prices do they charge...? (I'm wondering what I should be asking now for the portraits I do.)

I'm still not certain we know precisely what the artist does or doesn't do.
The example given wasn't their actual work (I don't think), but the requirements for high resolution photographs is a bit of a clue.

Of course, even an artist who was actually going to hand paint would prefer a good quality image to work from, rather than a damages, or very small image that was hard to make out the detail from (they can create their own detail, but it's not the same has recreating actual detail (say a mark on a dog's nose!).

Also, whilst it's very easy to apply filters to images using Photoshop (and other apps), not everybody knows how, and so that can be like saying 'anybody can make a spreadsheet' - which is true, but if you already have the know-how, then there's nothing wrong in charging for that knowledge.

But being able to create a spreadsheet doesn't make you an accountant or a statistical analysis expert. Being able to apply a simple filter in Photoshop doesn't make you an artist or a graphic designer.

As a side note, there are some amazing digital artists who simply use computers instead of real ink / paint. They aren't working with photos, they are drawing by hand directly to screen. Their work is every bit as worthy as those drawing to paper, or painting to canvas. So we have to be mindful that 'Photoshopped' is not a metaphor for 'easy'. Photoshop is just the app, it can do simple things and complex things.

I can only recreate what I can see and if I can’t see the detailing I can’t recreate it

I think she means it won’t work on the computer software.

I would find an artist who actually paints the pictures or at least one who is honest that they print them.

An artist that can paint would warn you that they would have to use some artistic license to fill in the missing detail.
A digital artist that knew what they are doing can work from an older printed photograph, as they wont need to rely on filters to do all the work.

I can only recreate what I can see and if I can’t see the detailing I can’t recreate it

It's ambiguous. I too believe it's likely to be because it's software, but it can also be true for a genuine artist. If people send them a poor quality photo of their pet, and expect a portrait to show the little mark under their eye (that can't be seen on the photo), then they are right to be asking for better quality source material.

It would be easier to judge if there was an actual portfolio of images from the artist themselves, then we could make a better call on it!

“Also, whilst it's very easy to apply filters to images using Photoshop (and other apps), not everybody knows how, and so that can be like saying 'anybody can make a spreadsheet' - which is true, but if you already have the know-how, then there's nothing wrong in charging for that knowledge.”

See Torn, now I’m doubting how much you know about photoshop. The link I provided above are watercolour actions. Not filters.

You literally push a play button to make the effect.

Looks computer generated to me.

Photoshop actions are macros, they are comprised of prerecorded settings and filters. The actions are only a sequential set of adjustments.

You press a 'play' button on an action because it's a recording. People working in photoshop day in day out will create their own actions manually.

But what do I know, I only use it day in day out.

Here's an example screenshot of where the stylize filter is...

The examples YOU gave are macros premade for you to create an effect, but don't have to buy those macros (actions), you can generate them yourself if you know photoshop well enough.

But that's by the by. The point is, it doesn't even have to be photoshop - these types of filter / effect / processes are commonplace in virtually any decent app these days e.g. GIMP, Painshop Pro et al.