Thank you all for developing such interesting debates starting from my work. It's so good having different oppinions, that's why this forum is not boring. You are perfecly right Danny with your story about that director of the gallery and I can tell you a similar story related to "classical vs. modern" matter: a guy opened a small gallery with some great artist's reproductions - there were some good copies of DaVinci, Cesanne, etc. Somebody came with a perfect reproduction of Monnet, but ...it was a digital (you know that there are some softwares with special
ushes which imitate some classical techniques - this was a Monnet
ush in points). Very enthusiastic at the beginning, the guy ended up with "Oh, I'm sorry, this is computer made..." SO WHAT??? It was a perfect copy...
And I'll tell you now why I used the expression "true digital", may be I couldn't make myself understood; it took me about one week to make this work, as I said, starting from white screen; I am sure that if I would have started from a photo, probably I would have finished in an hour or so. Here comes my question: is it a work more appreciated depending on the time and effort invested in it? Or only the final result counts? My opinion is that the RESULT is important, no matter if you spent five minutes or five weeks, if you use real
ushes or digital, if you start from a photo or not...