HOME | DD
ArthurBlue ā The Cycle (II) (alternative version)
Published: 2018-02-06 02:24:30 +0000 UTC; Views: 2732; Favourites: 53; Downloads: 108
Redirect to original
Description
This is the previous version of this image:I changed the woman after two comments in the same direction.
Thank you for any constructive criticism. It's often the case that an author is too influenced by a variety of factors that eventually decrease his objectivity, so a good dose of criticism is very much welcome.
Related content
Comments: 20
Amazing image!Ā But I highly prefer this original woman.Ā In fact, I wanted to purchase a print, but it would seem it's only available with the new woman in it?Ā While I still like the newer rendition, it's a deal-breaker for my purchase.Ā Is there any way you can make this previous version available as a print for purchase?Ā I see that it's perhaps available for download, but I'm not a techie, and can't figure out how to download it, let alone make a print from that.Ā By the way, I strongly prefer the 2 versions with women over the version without.Ā Also, my preference for this previous version is due to lighting, her clothing, and that she's walking.Ā Since she's not lit up from behind, it's a great contrast for me with the brightness running through the clouds and the brightness of the sun and medusae too.Ā And with her walking, it's like you captured a moment in time as opposed to the new lady "posing".
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thank you very much for your comment. Your point of view is really interesting and I can follow your logic. With these three versions I learned (again) that it's impossible to please everyone. 
I'm also honored by your interest in the image.
In fact, because I placed this image in the "Scraps" section of my gallery, DeviantArt doesn't allow printing. But I've just placed the image in the normal gallery now and I will keep it there for some time. Printing is now enabled.
Thanks again.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thanks Artur! (do you prefer Arthur?)Ā I really appreciate it, and I'll be ordering soon, along with A Gentle Touch II, Cartesian Dance, Flirt, and maybe some others.Ā I'm going to need to get a bigger home to have the wall space for all the images of yours I love so much.Ā Although 2 of the ones I listed are for friends who just became first-time house owners.Ā I'm sure they'll love them.Ā In fact, the left figure in Cartesian could easily be one of those friends, as she is a Cirque-type performer who contorts just like that.Ā And her romantic partner is a lady who looks a bit like the other figure.Ā Amazing!Ā They'll be thinking I sent you photos of them to request an image
š: 0 ā©: 1
I'm honored and humbled by your interest in my work. Some of the images you mention have some years and my computer at the time didn't allow me to produce bigger sizes for my images, which limits the maximum size of the prints. I hope you won't be disappointed by that.
That coincidence about the Cartesian Dance image is really interesting.
(My real name is Artur.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thanks for mentioning the smaller print size on the older images.Ā I was aware of this, and I'll just be happy to have them any way I can.Ā I placed my order not only for those mentioned, including this previous version of The Cycle, but I also added to my order Shores of Eridanus, Across the Sea of Tears, & Archipelago 27.Ā I had to cut myself off before adding The Three of Deep Red and a few others, it was so tough to limit myself to what I did.Ā As a chauffeur, I've had the pleasure of many times driving for this European gentleman whose name is Artur, so I was aware of the much different pronuciation.Ā He was from somewhere in the mediterranean, very friendly chap (I live in Florida)!Ā A question for these prints I've ordered coming in "rolls", and I apologize if it's more a question for the devianart people.Ā Is it important to get them unrolled quickly, even if they just go in a folder before I get around to matting and framing.Ā I wonder why they wouldn't just send them flat?
š: 0 ā©: 1
That's an interesting coincidence.
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. When I bought prints, I always bought them framed so they didn't come in a roll, they already came properly mounted in a frame. I'd suggest you to contact DeviantArt. You can go to their Help page, make a search and if in the bottom you'll see a question "did this answer your question?". If you click on "no", you'll then see a contact form that you can use to ask for further support.
I did that, clicked a few things and eventually came to this page, where you can make a direct question to them: help.deviantart.com/contact/?cā¦
(I'm not sure if what you'll see is the same as what I'm seeing, because I'm a DeviantArt "core" member and I think you're not, so that could mean the screens may differ.)
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thanks for your help Artur, and all your artwork as well.Ā Beauty, serenity, vibrancy, wonder & awe, hopefulness, amazing perspective, incredible imagination, the feeling that technology can not only give us amazing things, but also co-exist with us and nature.Ā All of that is what I experience when looking at your images.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thank you so much for your kind words. You touched all the feelings that I really hoped my images would convey, I'm really happy you feel it.
š: 0 ā©: 0
Were people really bothered by her nudity? I can see how the clothing you've given her in the newer version makes her more striking though. Both versions are amazing
š: 0 ā©: 2
Interesting, I didn't see her as being nude.Ā I see a skin-tight body suit, and boots.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Well spotted, you clearly have a keener eye than mine
š: 0 ā©: 0
Well, I actually like this version more than the new one because I feel the woman is too invasive in the new one and has a white light behind her which kinda pollutes the ambience for me.
Still, if that had been the only version, I'd have loved it anyways.
Between this one and the one without human things, I love them both.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thank you.
I totally understand what you mean. Yes, the original one was "in the shadows", so to speak, the new one is a more clear focal point. My thoughts for bringing the new one out more were that if she's in the focal area, she should have more visual predominance. Hence the bright light. Normally focal points are not in the shadows, they are exposed, they bring attention to them. As I was changing her, I thought that having a "mute" focal point was strange and so changed her color outfit and gave her more light. A mute focal point is a kind of a paradox, doesn't make much sense. I thought that I either had the courage to make her a focal point (white, bright) or didn't. The original version almost seemed like I wanted to make her a focal point but was afraid of doing it all the way.
Is this right or wrong? I don't know. When it comes to composition it's more about feelings than science. The fact that I felt it this way doesn't make me right, it just gives me a reason.
š: 0 ā©: 1
I feel like I learned something.
Maybe a way to make the woman not look so close to being the focal point in this one would have been to add a fourth tower and put her inside it looking through the windows.
It'd make her a little harder to see and it'd make the jellyfish and star to be the ones that stand out the most.
š: 0 ā©: 1
It's interesting you mention that because precisely one of the compositions I tried was very similar to what you described.
I imagined a large room with a window, the camera far from the window. Through the window, the clouds and the medusae were visible. The woman would be small (far from the camera, near the window). I tried that but gave up because I couldn't find a way to show the cloudscape and the medusae enough. The whole point of the image turned into the room and the outside environment was just a "detail". That was not my intention at all. I couldn't find a practical way to make it work that way and hence this current composition.
Believe me, I tried dozens of alternatives.
š: 0 ā©: 1
I see.
Did you try it like this? This is what I pictured in my last comment.
Ā
Ā
And...
1 or 2 GB?!
Woah man, that's same heavy info.
How long does it take to render it?!
š: 0 ā©: 1
Ah, yes, I see it now. Yes, that would have worked. Thanks for sharing!
Render time of this particular image was fairly fast, just about two hours (at 3840 pix wide). Some of my other images have an even larger size and also take longer. I think the longest render time I ever had was about 24 hours or so. They also take up a lot of RAM (I have 16GB and some of my images almost hit that limit). The software I use renders using the CPU; I have an i7, already about 5 or 6 years old.
Big file size is one of the disadvantages of 3D virtual worlds, because everything is there in the world, even if you can see it in the render.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Daaaaamn. 24 hours. Holy cow.
You use the CPU because you don't have a GPU or is the CPU just better at it?
š: 0 ā©: 1
That's just the way that particular software currently works (Vue, from e-on software). It doesn't have GPU rendering yet, it can only render on CPU.
š: 0 ā©: 0