Your Favorite Artwork

[Loxuru]

One I like for the atmosphere.:



A dark one:


A Ducans, I particularly like because of the 'finishing touch of the execution' aspect :


Another very good from Ducans :


One on the theme : Roman arena. Condemned waiting in line until it is their turn :



And finally this one from Rotrex, with a huge contrast that makes it special : one one hand, the serene look of the crucified woman, who seems to have spent time to her hairstyle and make-up before her execution, and on the other hand the signs of suffering : the whip marks, blood trickling down from her arms and the severe overall sun burn inflicted by the cruel sun above her head.

 

[Barbaria1]

A few from Crucificateur:

 

[Barbaria1]

And a couple from Montycrusto ...



a couple from phlebas ... one recent, one older ...



And another from Mp5stab ...

 

[Madiosi]

I love the rare Montycrusto drawings much, the other stuff also. But the rare things are desirable.
And Yusseby a other remarkable artist with drawing-pencil.

 

[Hangnail]

Some I like:

 

[bobinder]

So many wonderful artists' works have graced the threads of CruxForums and other sites over the years! I hope before we are through here that all will have been mentioned. I know we are not through yet. Then perhaps, the thread could move on to address in a more general way the reasons why these forms of art excite us so!

I know it's early days in the thread, but in a rough count, I make that 237 different images posted in less than three days. Analysing the reasons why particular pictures appeal is likely to be subjective because images appeal to different viewers for different reasons. Does the fact that over 100 of them are 3D reflect the popularity of that medium, or simply the wide availability compared to other media?

I reckon there are 48 manipulations and 11 digital drawings/paintings which means that 160 of our 237 have been created on a computer. Of the remainder, only 25 are photographs. That leaves 52 pictures created by traditional means - 45 drawings and 7 wet paintings.

Modern technology has revolutionised and facilitated the production of art in an way unprecedented since the invention of photography. High standards have been set in digital art and realism is just part of its appeal. I often read comments about the appeal of drawings leaving something to the imagination, as well as providing a sense of expression which it may be harder, although not impossible, to achieve in computer programmes.

Evidently traditional art still has its place, but perhaps the wide availability of high quality digital art has raised viewers expectations?

 

[Secret Keeper]

Fantastic. This is my first view of these. I find it overwhelming!

 

[phlebas]

I know it's early days in the thread, but in a rough count, I make that 237 different images posted in less than three days. Analysing the reasons why particular pictures appeal is likely to be subjective because images appeal to different viewers for different reasons. Does the fact that over 100 of them are 3D reflect the popularity of that medium, or simply the wide availability compared to other media?

I reckon there are 48 manipulations and 11 digital drawings/paintings which means that 160 of our 237 have been created on a computer. Of the remainder, only 25 are photographs. That leaves 52 pictures created by traditional means - 45 drawings and 7 wet paintings.

Modern technology has revolutionised and facilitated the production of art in an way unprecedented since the invention of photography. High standards have been set in digital art and realism is just part of its appeal. I often read comments about the appeal of drawings leaving something to the imagination, as well as providing a sense of expression which it may be harder, although not impossible, to achieve in computer programmes.

Evidently traditional art still has its place, but perhaps the wide availability of high quality digital art has raised viewers expectations?

Interesting analysis Bob. I think things are definitely changing, and 3D art has become so good now that it is everywhere.
Here is an example from Steve Cordero. His early work was traditional art, his later work computer art. The classic example is Didi, which he did in both formats over time. What do people think?


There are still good crux photos out there. I'm curious to know why they are relatively less favoured in this thread? Maybe photos don't tell a story, they have less element of fantasy or narrative to them? I love them for the shapes, the sense of real bodies on the cross, for me they are still hard to beat.

This thread has finally inspired me to start a "from my archive" thread, here
http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/from-my-archive-1999-to.6119/
I will post a small selection from my archive starting in 1999. I will be open to requests if you see or remember something interesting, but my archive is mostly ordered chronologically, so you pretty much get it as it comes.

btw somehow I failed to post one of your works in my selection on this thread. I have always liked this one, for the group study, for the narrative possibilities. Thanks for all your art and for your thoughtful contributions Bob.

 

[kádár lászló]

I like Jastrow

 

[Barbaria1]

I know it's early days in the thread, but in a rough count, I make that 237 different images posted in less than three days. Analysing the reasons why particular pictures appeal is likely to be subjective because images appeal to different viewers for different reasons. Does the fact that over 100 of them are 3D reflect the popularity of that medium, or simply the wide availability compared to other media?

I reckon there are 48 manipulations and 11 digital drawings/paintings which means that 160 of our 237 have been created on a computer. Of the remainder, only 25 are photographs. That leaves 52 pictures created by traditional means - 45 drawings and 7 wet paintings.

Modern technology has revolutionised and facilitated the production of art in an way unprecedented since the invention of photography. High standards have been set in digital art and realism is just part of its appeal. I often read comments about the appeal of drawings leaving something to the imagination, as well as providing a sense of expression which it may be harder, although not impossible, to achieve in computer programmes.

Evidently traditional art still has its place, but perhaps the wide availability of high quality digital art has raised viewers expectations?

Interesting analysis Bob. I think things are definitely changing, and 3D art has become so good now that it is everywhere.
Here is an example from Steve Cordero. His early work was traditional art, his later work computer art. The classic example is Didi, which he did in both formats over time. What do people think?
View attachment 488100 View attachment 488101

There are still good crux photos out there. I'm curious to know why they are relatively less favoured in this thread? Maybe photos don't tell a story, they have less element of fantasy or narrative to them? I love them for the shapes, the sense of real bodies on the cross, for me they are still hard to beat.

This thread has finally inspired me to start a "from my archive" thread, here
http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/from-my-archive-1999-to.6119/
I will post a small selection from my archive starting in 1999. I will be open to requests if you see or remember something interesting, but my archive is mostly ordered chronologically, so you pretty much get it as it comes.

btw somehow I failed to post one of your works in my selection on this thread. I have always liked this one, for the group study, for the narrative possibilities. Thanks for all your art and for your thoughtful contributions Bob.
View attachment 488102

Thanks guys for taking up the challenge of discussing the "why".

I like phlebas' point about the importance of being able to discern or imagine a story. That is certainly an important element for me. I don't want to just gaze at a piece of art or a photo, I want to let my imagination run wild over possible back stories and explanations, as well as what kinds of emotions and feelings the victim is experiencing, what she or he might be thinking, etc.

Thanks Bob for the statistical analysis!

And thanks phlebas too for starting your new "from my archive" thread. Good to have the many gems contained therein out to be viewed again.

 

[windar]

Bob-I don't know why I generally find traditional drawing and painting more appealing than computer art. Perhaps it's that I could imagine myself learning to do the latter, but never the former, and thus am more impressed by the accomplishment. Perhaps it's simply that the computer art looks "too real", if that makes sense. I prefer that clear line between imagination and reality. Or maybe it's the sheer volume of computer art that makes each piece that much less special.

That isn't to say there isn't great computer art out there and it's the end result that should matter more than the process. Some writers still prefer hand writing or an old fashioned typewriter. I'm not sure whether that is anything other than affectation, but if it works for them, I won't argue. Then there is the ebooks vs paper. But enough on that...

 

[mp5stab]

I think the biggest appeal of computer drawings and 3d art over normal photography is the presence of actual nails, which appears to be an important component of most everyone's favorite artwork. Drawings can fully embrace the fantasy, while photography has to fake it a little. With regards to computer art, I think most people like it because it captures the form of the bodies with shadow and highlight, and isn't just a bunch of lines. That's one of the reasons I've moved towards a more computer-based style over time.

 

[messaline]

I wanted to profit of this thread to thank all the artists who were bestowing some of their time to nail me to a cross, not always like I'm in reality but how they could imagine me ...
Anyway, I thank all of them !

In first, obviously Mr. Tree (like says Dothy) with his magnifiscent pic of his story "Messaline Plans Go Avry " ...
It was my first crucifixion here and never I'll forget it !


In a same way, portraying Messa like a "top model" (what I'm not ...) Luna was crucifying me ...



Nardnob was also one of my torturers , but harder ! He had no pity for his victims !!!



... to be continued ...

 

[Barbaria1]

My artistic talents are negligible. I can't even do a decent job of stick figures, so my thoughts here are about what I like to see. I leave the how and the technicalities to the talented experts, of which we have so many.

But when I say that I am always looking for the background story, for the emotions and thoughts of victims and executioners/torturers alike, one focal point is always facial expressions.

I imagine this is one of the challenges that our artists must confront ... depicting through facial expression such things as fear, pain, resignation, defiance, horror, astonishment, humiliation, disgust, lust, ecstasy, anger, malevolence, etc.

Body language is an important part of it too. Are there such things as strain, tension, recoil, exhaustion, limpness to be seen in the bodies of the victims? How does one capture writhing and squirming?

I am also attracted to depictions of mass torture or execution, and here too lies a challenge in how numerous individuals are depicted and differentiated as to their facial expressions, body language, and of course relationship to one another.

Just a few thoughts, but I think it is easy to see from them why I am so in awe of what the artists and manippers (is that a word?) are able to achieve and post here on CF.

 

[Barbaria1]

I wanted to profit of this thread to thank all the artists who were bestowing some of their time to nail me to a cross, not always like I'm in reality but how they could imagine me ...
Anyway, I thank all of them !

In first, obviously Mr. Tree (like says Dothy) with his magnifiscent pic of his story "Messaline Plans Go Avry " ...
It was my first crucifixion here and never I'll forget it !
View attachment 488173

In a same way, portraying Messa like a "top model" (what I'm not ...) Luna was crucifying me ...

View attachment 488174

Nardnob was also one of my torturers , but harder ! He had no pity for his victims !!!

View attachment 488175 View attachment 488176 View attachment 488177

... to be continued ...

And recognition of Messa herself as a talented artist on this site was going to be the subject of my next post. Coming soon.

 

[thehangingtree]

I wanted to profit of this thread to thank all the artists who were bestowing some of their time to nail me to a cross, not always like I'm in reality but how they could imagine me ...
Anyway, I thank all of them !

In first, obviously Mr. Tree (like says Dothy) with his magnifiscent pic of his story "Messaline Plans Go Avry " ...
It was my first crucifixion here and never I'll forget it !
View attachment 488173

In a same way, portraying Messa like a "top model" (what I'm not ...) Luna was crucifying me ...

View attachment 488174

Nardnob was also one of my torturers , but harder ! He had no pity for his victims !!!

View attachment 488175 View attachment 488176 View attachment 488177

... to be continued ...

It was a pleasure to crucify you, dear Messa

 

[Barbaria1]

A sampling, serious and humorous, from Messaline:

 

[bobinder]

Interesting analysis Bob. I think things are definitely changing, and 3D art has become so good now that it is everywhere.
Here is an example from Steve Cordero. His early work was traditional art, his later work computer art. The classic example is Didi, which he did in both formats over time. What do people think?
View attachment 488100 View attachment 488101

There are still good crux photos out there. I'm curious to know why they are relatively less favoured in this thread? Maybe photos don't tell a story, they have less element of fantasy or narrative to them? I love them for the shapes, the sense of real bodies on the cross, for me they are still hard to beat.

This thread has finally inspired me to start a "from my archive" thread, here
http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/from-my-archive-1999-to.6119/
I will post a small selection from my archive starting in 1999. I will be open to requests if you see or remember something interesting, but my archive is mostly ordered chronologically, so you pretty much get it as it comes.

btw somehow I failed to post one of your works in my selection on this thread. I have always liked this one, for the group study, for the narrative possibilities. Thanks for all your art and for your thoughtful contributions Bob.
View attachment 488102

Thank you Phlebas - your support for my efforts has been echoed by others and it is all greatly appreciated. Multi-figure compositions still present challenges for me in terms of consistent scale and lighting, but the extensive manual overworking of the figures in 'Via Appia 9' seems to have repaid the effort involved.

You pose an interesting question about the translation of traditional work into digital art. Both versions of Steve Cordero's 'Dido' have considerable merit and both have great facial expessions. I prefer the muscular stress of the original but as a pair, they present different interpretations of the same subject. The digital revolution has allowed many new artists to enter the field, who would otherwise feel compromised by their drawing skills, so in this respect and in terms of internet publication, it can only be a good thing.

My 'East of Eden' paintings were completed in the days before I had a computer. Subsequently I revisited this one as a manipulation because I was dissatisfied with some aspects of the original painting. The digital version succeeded in allowing me to work flexibly on a much larger scale with improved detail and realism.



As you say, there is a wealth of crux photography which has yet to appear in this thread. Emily has observed that this medium is restricted to binding the models to the cross and occasionally the facial expressions fall short of realistic agony. But there are many excellent photos which constitute an invaluable resource for artists and manipulators.

I am glad to hear you are inspired to start your new thread - carry on manipulating!

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

That's it! Thanks Jedakk. That one has inspired so many highly imaginative thoughts in my warped little mind!

After 15 years I'd forgotten some of the story behind that picture. Dan (Welsh Webb) and I corresponded often back in 2002 and he hadn't gotten into his crux photography phase then. He drew that picture on a large sheet of drawing paper, maybe 18" x 24", and then had no way to scan such a large format to share it online. Scanners that could handle anything bigger than letter or legal size were scarce back then.

I had already pieced together some scans for him to get some of his smaller drawings into digital form but nothing as large as that. Looking back, it was a hell of a lot of work! Here's the email exchange for "Sunday in the Park":

5/5/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

I'm still struggling with the tedious detail of the current drawing. It currently contains seventeen figures, nine of which are on crosses, one who is ready to be "crucified" and two undressing. The rest are people just mullein around the park. I still need to draw a couple of police officers (Haven't found a good reference yet) and a couple of city workers, so there is still much to do!
I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this! Oh, it's not that I don't want to draw it, it's just that I really need to be working on my convention art, and I need to knock off an oil painting for the Plymouth Art's Consul, so that I can eat this week! (I can't wait until I start at the bakery...Free bread!!!).
Even so, when I start working on a piece of art, I can't stop. If I do, it never gets done!
I'll send it out as soon as I'm done, and can figure out how to get it scanned properly.
(It's just too damned big! No more large art for a while!).​

5/6/2002: WelshWebb to Jedakk:

The large drawing is finally done...Or, at least done enough! I'm too tired to work on it any further!
I've tried to scan it, but the paper is simply too large! I'm getting too many hot spots, and glare off the paper, so I think I'm going to have to take it to a copy-shop, and try printing sections of it. If that works, then I'll send you the copies.​

5/6/2002: Jedakk to WelshWebb:

It's strange that you're getting so much glare off of the paper on that scan you're trying to do. That usually only happens if the paper's not completely flat on top of the scanner. Are those the wrinkles you mentioned before? I look forward to seeing it whenever you're done.​

5/6/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

The paper is differently not flat on the scanner. I tried to lay my huge anatomy book over it, but it didn't help. I have one more thing to try before I had down to the copy shop. (I'm really to broke to do that!). So, we'll see. I do want to get this done, and off my mind! Besides, as small as my apartment is, I know the drawing will get damaged if I keep letting it lay around!​

5/6/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

"Say friends? Do like scans that overlap? Not just overlap, but seriously overlap? Well, then, come on down to DAN'S OVERLAPPING AUTORAMMA!!!!"

I don't know how long it's been since you've seen an America local commercial...But they haven't improved much...
In order to overlap the whole picture, I had to do 18 scans! So, you've asked for it!!!
The center sections came out overexposed this time. Very annoying, but not much I can do about it.
My zip-file is being a pain, and I'm going to have to send them to you in smaller files.
As your system is obviously better than mine, I figure you won't have any problems (I hope!).
I'm also certain you'll figure out the titles with no problem (LUC=Left upper corner) and so forth.
Do as you wish with this! I've had it! I'll not do another one this large again! It's back to 11x14 for me!
Thanks!
-Dan​

5/7/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

I hope you like the giant drawing! I loosely based it on our Village Green (which is, in fact, called Kellog Park). Some of the names of the girls are slightly changed from ones I actually know, who probably would choose a few hours of public humiliation over several worth of community service!​

5/7/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

I have got most of your drawing composited but it will be tomorrow sometime before I'll be able to finish it. You might see it in your e-mail early in the morning your time since it's 8 hours later here than where you are. One problem you may have with this is the file size. I expect that it will be pretty large and that will no doubt cause some of the Crux guys to bitch. I'll try making some reduced size versions also and see how that works out for size and quality.​

5/9/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,

Sorry I haven't gotten your picture put together completely yet. Too much real work to do and not enough time to get all the work done on it. I do have it pieced together but I still have to match the brightness levels across all 18 scans, blend the edges together and create the final composite. Because each of those scans occupies its own layer in Photoshop, the working file is huge, up around 80 megabytes I think. The final JPG I'll send you will be a small fraction of that size, of course.

So did Jess pose for any of these characters in this picture? I remember you said that it was easy to modify her body to get different body types for your pictures. This is an interesting fantasy picture, aside from its crucifixion theme. I've always liked pictures of this type with a variety of actions going on. You have all of these naked girls tied to their crosses, being humiliated for their crimes, and there's a girl reading a book among the crosses, a couple of young boys who appear to not be too sure about what's going on, and the old couple giving the naked criminals disapproving looks as they walk through. This is quite an effort you've done here and very creative. I hope that you get some positive responses from the Crux people but you never know.​

5/11/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,

Attached is the picture I composited from the scans you sent. This one is reduced to 8"x12" and enhanced to darken the linework. I also did a little work on some of the smudges to clean them up some. I have a full-size 24"x36" version also but it's a pretty big file, over a megabyte so I'll send it in a separate e-mail and see if it goes ok.

You know it's interesting to me that I looked at all of the pieces of this individually for some time so I was very familiar with each part of the picture, but when I finally had it all together, background levels all matched and the edges blended and looked at the whole thing at once it was a very different effect. I like it, this is an interesting picture with lots of detail.

Well, I hope you get some feedback from the Crux people when you post this, it's certainly unique and very well done!

Jedakk​

5/12/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

Yes, all the girls (except the old lady and the girl reading) are Jess. The wonderful thing about using her as a model is that I can draw here directly from life, and her natural beauty jumps on to the page, or with just a few adjustments of the pencil, can make her look completely different! I'm still waiting for our crap Michigan weather to improve so that I can see about getting her back outside for a little photography!​

5/13/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

Jedakk!

Master of computers! I thank you! Hell, this looks better than the original!

I'll see about posting it on the sight soon, but the computer demons still linger! I'm now starting to think that it may be my computer after all, and not AOL as I believed.

Also, I'm very busy getting ready for this weekend's convention, and juggling my new job at the same time!

I was very relieved when Jess told me how much she liked the drawings I did, and that she can't wait to see this one. She has also told me that she's more than happy to keep posing for me! What a relief! Good models are hard to find! Especially in Michigan! Now if we can just get some warm weather!!!!
​

5/13/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,

I'm sure that picture doesn't look better than the original but I think it's a little improvement over the scanned images. Hope you can get that damned computer fixed, they really will drive you crazy.

Jedakk​

5/14/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

Your piecing together of the drawing does look better for one reason...It's darker! I didn't have time to shade, and really detail the original, so yours was a definite improvement! I did not get the larger attachment to your (first?) e-mail, however, so I don't know how that came out.

I figure on posting the smaller jpg to the group, and the larger one into the files section, (although I don't know how to do that yet). Hopefully, it will be well received.​

5/15/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,​

I sent the larger version of the picture again but I suspect that it may be too big of an attachment for AOL to allow you to receive it. If that doesn't work I'll figure out another way to get it to you.

The manipulation I did to get that picture darker like that involved working with the picture's histogram, which is kind of a bar chart that shows the distribution of the shades of gray. For example, the "white" areas of the scans you sent actually weren't precisely white, they had a little gray in them. Some of that was from light smudging and some was just the color of the paper itself, and then some of it was due to the scanner's default settings for brightness and contrast.

When I got all of the 18 scans matched together so they fit, I had them on 18 separate layers in Photoshop. There were obvious difference in the backgrounds of each of them, so I went to each layer individually and set the "white point" on its histogram - the highest value - to be what I judged should be the lightest area of that particular piece. After I'd done that the white areas of the pieces all looked the same to my eye, so I then went through and blended all the edges of the scans out and created flat JPG files in two different sizes from the master Photoshop file.

Now in the JPG files, where everything was on a single layer, I once again opened the picture's histogram. This time I shifted the 50% gray point - literally the point that should be halfway between white and black - upwards toward the white end of the scale. That told Photoshop that any grays that had been on the lighter side of that point and now were on the darker side of it should be somewhere between "halfway black" and black. Again this is all an eyeball thing, no higher math involved.

There are ways to get a similar result by using only the brightness/contrast controls but I tend to shy away from that because those operations actually delete some detail from the picture. Not such a big deal with a pencil drawing but with continuous-tone photographs it can be a major consideration. There is also another way to convert the entire picture to only black and white with no shades of gray by setting a threshhold point. Anything above the threshhold is white and below it becomes black. Theoretically it ought to turn the picture into something like a pen-and-ink drawing but in reality it's very hard not to completely delete little details here and there.

Anyway, let me know if you get that last picture or not.

Jedakk


So again, that damned picture was a hell of a lot of work, both for Dan and for me. But here we are fifteen years later and people are still enjoying it. And look at all of the interesting things about how it was created:

• All of the girls in the picture are based on a single model who Dan was using at the time.
• The park in the picture is based on a real park in Michigan.
• It took 18 overlapping scans on a letter-size scanner to capture the image.
• We were fighting the limitations of Yahoo, AOL and being halfway around the world from each other.

Just for completeness, here's the larger version of "Sunday in the Park" from 2002:

Jedakk

 

[andy01]

After 15 years I'd forgotten some of the story behind that picture. Dan (Welsh Webb) and I corresponded often back in 2002 and he hadn't gotten into his crux photography phase then. He drew that picture on a large sheet of drawing paper, maybe 18" x 24", and then had no way to scan such a large format to share it online. Scanners that could handle anything bigger than letter or legal size were scarce back then.

I had already pieced together some scans for him to get some of his smaller drawings into digital form but nothing as large as that. Looking back, it was a hell of a lot of work! Here's the email exchange for "Sunday in the Park":

5/5/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

I'm still struggling with the tedious detail of the current drawing. It currently contains seventeen figures, nine of which are on crosses, one who is ready to be "crucified" and two undressing. The rest are people just mullein around the park. I still need to draw a couple of police officers (Haven't found a good reference yet) and a couple of city workers, so there is still much to do!
I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this! Oh, it's not that I don't want to draw it, it's just that I really need to be working on my convention art, and I need to knock off an oil painting for the Plymouth Art's Consul, so that I can eat this week! (I can't wait until I start at the bakery...Free bread!!!).
Even so, when I start working on a piece of art, I can't stop. If I do, it never gets done!
I'll send it out as soon as I'm done, and can figure out how to get it scanned properly.
(It's just too damned big! No more large art for a while!).​

5/6/2002: WelshWebb to Jedakk:

The large drawing is finally done...Or, at least done enough! I'm too tired to work on it any further!
I've tried to scan it, but the paper is simply too large! I'm getting too many hot spots, and glare off the paper, so I think I'm going to have to take it to a copy-shop, and try printing sections of it. If that works, then I'll send you the copies.​

5/6/2002: Jedakk to WelshWebb:

It's strange that you're getting so much glare off of the paper on that scan you're trying to do. That usually only happens if the paper's not completely flat on top of the scanner. Are those the wrinkles you mentioned before? I look forward to seeing it whenever you're done.​

5/6/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

The paper is differently not flat on the scanner. I tried to lay my huge anatomy book over it, but it didn't help. I have one more thing to try before I had down to the copy shop. (I'm really to broke to do that!). So, we'll see. I do want to get this done, and off my mind! Besides, as small as my apartment is, I know the drawing will get damaged if I keep letting it lay around!​

5/6/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

"Say friends? Do like scans that overlap? Not just overlap, but seriously overlap? Well, then, come on down to DAN'S OVERLAPPING AUTORAMMA!!!!"

I don't know how long it's been since you've seen an America local commercial...But they haven't improved much...
In order to overlap the whole picture, I had to do 18 scans! So, you've asked for it!!!
The center sections came out overexposed this time. Very annoying, but not much I can do about it.
My zip-file is being a pain, and I'm going to have to send them to you in smaller files.
As your system is obviously better than mine, I figure you won't have any problems (I hope!).
I'm also certain you'll figure out the titles with no problem (LUC=Left upper corner) and so forth.
Do as you wish with this! I've had it! I'll not do another one this large again! It's back to 11x14 for me!
Thanks!
-Dan​

5/7/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

I hope you like the giant drawing! I loosely based it on our Village Green (which is, in fact, called Kellog Park). Some of the names of the girls are slightly changed from ones I actually know, who probably would choose a few hours of public humiliation over several worth of community service!​

5/7/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

I have got most of your drawing composited but it will be tomorrow sometime before I'll be able to finish it. You might see it in your e-mail early in the morning your time since it's 8 hours later here than where you are. One problem you may have with this is the file size. I expect that it will be pretty large and that will no doubt cause some of the Crux guys to bitch. I'll try making some reduced size versions also and see how that works out for size and quality.​

5/9/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,

Sorry I haven't gotten your picture put together completely yet. Too much real work to do and not enough time to get all the work done on it. I do have it pieced together but I still have to match the brightness levels across all 18 scans, blend the edges together and create the final composite. Because each of those scans occupies its own layer in Photoshop, the working file is huge, up around 80 megabytes I think. The final JPG I'll send you will be a small fraction of that size, of course.

So did Jess pose for any of these characters in this picture? I remember you said that it was easy to modify her body to get different body types for your pictures. This is an interesting fantasy picture, aside from its crucifixion theme. I've always liked pictures of this type with a variety of actions going on. You have all of these naked girls tied to their crosses, being humiliated for their crimes, and there's a girl reading a book among the crosses, a couple of young boys who appear to not be too sure about what's going on, and the old couple giving the naked criminals disapproving looks as they walk through. This is quite an effort you've done here and very creative. I hope that you get some positive responses from the Crux people but you never know.​

5/11/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,

Attached is the picture I composited from the scans you sent. This one is reduced to 8"x12" and enhanced to darken the linework. I also did a little work on some of the smudges to clean them up some. I have a full-size 24"x36" version also but it's a pretty big file, over a megabyte so I'll send it in a separate e-mail and see if it goes ok.

You know it's interesting to me that I looked at all of the pieces of this individually for some time so I was very familiar with each part of the picture, but when I finally had it all together, background levels all matched and the edges blended and looked at the whole thing at once it was a very different effect. I like it, this is an interesting picture with lots of detail.

Well, I hope you get some feedback from the Crux people when you post this, it's certainly unique and very well done!

Jedakk​

5/12/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

Yes, all the girls (except the old lady and the girl reading) are Jess. The wonderful thing about using her as a model is that I can draw here directly from life, and her natural beauty jumps on to the page, or with just a few adjustments of the pencil, can make her look completely different! I'm still waiting for our crap Michigan weather to improve so that I can see about getting her back outside for a little photography!​

5/13/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

Jedakk!

Master of computers! I thank you! Hell, this looks better than the original!

I'll see about posting it on the sight soon, but the computer demons still linger! I'm now starting to think that it may be my computer after all, and not AOL as I believed.

Also, I'm very busy getting ready for this weekend's convention, and juggling my new job at the same time!

I was very relieved when Jess told me how much she liked the drawings I did, and that she can't wait to see this one. She has also told me that she's more than happy to keep posing for me! What a relief! Good models are hard to find! Especially in Michigan! Now if we can just get some warm weather!!!!
​

5/13/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,

I'm sure that picture doesn't look better than the original but I think it's a little improvement over the scanned images. Hope you can get that damned computer fixed, they really will drive you crazy.

Jedakk​

5/14/2002 - WelshWebb to Jedakk:

Your piecing together of the drawing does look better for one reason...It's darker! I didn't have time to shade, and really detail the original, so yours was a definite improvement! I did not get the larger attachment to your (first?) e-mail, however, so I don't know how that came out.

I figure on posting the smaller jpg to the group, and the larger one into the files section, (although I don't know how to do that yet). Hopefully, it will be well received.​

5/15/2002 - Jedakk to WelshWebb:

Dan,​

I sent the larger version of the picture again but I suspect that it may be too big of an attachment for AOL to allow you to receive it. If that doesn't work I'll figure out another way to get it to you.

The manipulation I did to get that picture darker like that involved working with the picture's histogram, which is kind of a bar chart that shows the distribution of the shades of gray. For example, the "white" areas of the scans you sent actually weren't precisely white, they had a little gray in them. Some of that was from light smudging and some was just the color of the paper itself, and then some of it was due to the scanner's default settings for brightness and contrast.

When I got all of the 18 scans matched together so they fit, I had them on 18 separate layers in Photoshop. There were obvious difference in the backgrounds of each of them, so I went to each layer individually and set the "white point" on its histogram - the highest value - to be what I judged should be the lightest area of that particular piece. After I'd done that the white areas of the pieces all looked the same to my eye, so I then went through and blended all the edges of the scans out and created flat JPG files in two different sizes from the master Photoshop file.

Now in the JPG files, where everything was on a single layer, I once again opened the picture's histogram. This time I shifted the 50% gray point - literally the point that should be halfway between white and black - upwards toward the white end of the scale. That told Photoshop that any grays that had been on the lighter side of that point and now were on the darker side of it should be somewhere between "halfway black" and black. Again this is all an eyeball thing, no higher math involved.

There are ways to get a similar result by using only the brightness/contrast controls but I tend to shy away from that because those operations actually delete some detail from the picture. Not such a big deal with a pencil drawing but with continuous-tone photographs it can be a major consideration. There is also another way to convert the entire picture to only black and white with no shades of gray by setting a threshhold point. Anything above the threshhold is white and below it becomes black. Theoretically it ought to turn the picture into something like a pen-and-ink drawing but in reality it's very hard not to completely delete little details here and there.

Anyway, let me know if you get that last picture or not.

Jedakk


So again, that damned picture was a hell of a lot of work, both for Dan and for me. But here we are fifteen years later and people are still enjoying it. And look at all of the interesting things about how it was created:

• All of the girls in the picture are based on a single model who Dan was using at the time.
• The park in the picture is based on a real park in Michigan.
• It took 18 overlapping scans on a letter-size scanner to capture the image.
• We were fighting the limitations of Yahoo, AOL and being halfway around the world from each other.

Just for completeness, here's the larger version of "Sunday in the Park" from 2002:

Jedakk

Wow!