• themachine@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow that’s awesome. Thanks for the reply.

        If you search for the image online there’s another version that looks a bit more natural. I think this one has been retouched as it’s more crisp with more contrast with a bluer sky. But I can’t be sure because I’m just a caveman.

        Look at the different versions. Which do you think is representative of the real oil on canvas?

        • IMALlama
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Man, color in photographs and color on screens can be quite the rabbit hole…

          Many consumer screens, especially phones, display colors very differently. Likewise, most cameras (phones, DSLRs, MLIC, etc) will render straight out of the camera JPEGs with various degrees of tweaks (more contrast, saturation, etc).

          Take a photo of the same thing with two different cameras and then view the results on two different screens. You’ll get a total of four different results.

          • owen@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Totally. Not to mention that post processing settings on TVs could make two identical models present radically different pictures

    • teft
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I totally thought it was AI rendered.

  • TragicNotCute
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a fantastic painting. The more you look the better it gets. Thanks for sharing!

  • Helkriz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t believe the photoreal quality of this artwork. And knowing that it is a painting from 1886 is more exciting!