Couldn't get the noses right so I left them off. Still, it's a pretty good repair job, eh?
Bigger version on my blog.
From the Restore Art Badly challenge. See all 276 entries (closed)
( , Thu 30 Aug 2012, 13:50, archived)
Bigger version on my blog.
From the Restore Art Badly challenge. See all 276 entries (closed)
( , Thu 30 Aug 2012, 13:50, archived)
Ahh that damn painting. I think we studied it at college for a whole sodding term!
Once you see that he fucked up the foot on the left and repainted it, you can never unsee.
( ,
Thu 30 Aug 2012, 14:07,
archived)
Yeah, isnt it something daft like a4 sized?
I remember thinking how amazing all the details were.
( ,
Thu 30 Aug 2012, 15:38,
archived)
Isn't there a theory...
...that he used a lens and traced the projected image?
This also accounts for the size of the painting - it's something to do with a limitation introduced by the maximum size of decent lenses that they could make in those days.
Still a good painting though - I particularly like the reflection in the mirror in the background.
( ,
Thu 30 Aug 2012, 15:53,
archived)
This also accounts for the size of the painting - it's something to do with a limitation introduced by the maximum size of decent lenses that they could make in those days.
Still a good painting though - I particularly like the reflection in the mirror in the background.
I think some renaissance artists
used pinhole camera setups (camera obscura?) to sketch their sitters, so it's possible.
( ,
Thu 30 Aug 2012, 16:27,
archived)