• Last Seen: 4 mos ago
  • Old Guild Username: Goldmarble
  • Joined: 13 yrs ago
  • Posts: 674 (0.15 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. Goldmarble 13 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

Alex said
You're more than welcome to do that but other candidates are voting (for themselves) so you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.


There's a thing called honor and respectability. Natsumehack earns +1 Respect, +1 Honor.
monstahunta said
43 million!? It looks like someone just stuck a band-aid with the squared edges onto a piece of paper, and plunged it into some old watercolor water that had A LOT of orange pigment dissolved in it.


http://www.christies.com/about/press-center/releases/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=6755
My apologies. It was estimated to sell for $43 million at Christie's New York Auction in 2012.

It actually sold for $86.8 million.
Alex said
The following people did not post in the thread affirming that they voted:
Goldmarble


My apologies. Didn't read. Voted.
Sherlock Holmes said
Great. Now let's see you do a master study of one of those (or even just explain to me why they work compositionally) and actually do something impressive.


This is the reason I'm not an "artist".

I cannot intellectually deduce the compositional elements of emotion and thought....

IE: I can't make up enough flowery bullshit to describe some stupid ass painting to convince someone to pay a ridiculous amount for it.



How the fuck does that sell for $43 MILLION? Seriously, how the fuck can anyone feel that is worth that much money? How much of a con artist was the painter, or whoever started this piece's rise to ridiculous expense?

Fuck painting. Fuck art. I'm going into the forest to take pretty pictures.
Dervish. I think you are missing a step between 6 and 7.
For those who use facebook frequently, I guess this could interest them.

But being the sort of person who only uses facebook to...be reachable by family and friends, I can't see the appeal personally.
It took you half an hour to google some famous paintings? Shit man, either you type slower than my grandmother, or your google-fu is weak. Nothing to be proud of here.
8 said
Turn up the aperture speed, it'll make the water look a lot better. Unless you're purposely doing a long exposure to get that smooth water effect, even then some changes might be made, looks a bit wonky right now. /amateurphotographerPictures look great, all that aside!


Intentional. Might be going too long. Generally in the area of a 15-25 second exposure.

Going to try shorter exposures, and a few other tweaks to my set up. Second pic was my attempt at HDR, subtle effect. Problem was that neither pic lined up. Forgot to turn off autofocus, and taking a remote with me.
Smiral said
These options are garbage and not even in a fun ironic way


Blame the people who nominated.
Barioth said
Where'd you take these pictures?


Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada.

Drakel said
Those are really nice Marble.


Thanks Drakel!
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet