I thought that I would add some golden ratio lines onto a copy of the Sea_sky_sand picture that is in my previous post, just out of interest as to where they are in relation to the sea, the sky, and the sand.

So using the figures of 0.618 and 0.382 and the 915 pixel height of the picture, gives

0.618 x915 = 565.47 so use 565

0.382 x 915 = 349.53 so use 350

Use red filled 3 pixel wide rectangles to show the golden ratio lines.

The picture is 1278 pixels wide.

That seems quite amazing.

Yet looking at the picture - I have been looking at the print from time to time for over a month now - I tend to think it might look better if the interface between sea and sand were lower down with about half as much sand and more sea.

(Break for a while while I try a quick mash up to see what it looks like.)

Yet I am not so sure now.

Where would the best height in the picture be for where the sea and the sand meet please?

William

Don’t forget that the sand is in the foreground, so a fairly narrow strip is going to look wider than a strip of sea whose width is similarly narrow.

I find it good that this thread can drift its topic to wherever it goes.

Going back to the claim in the article linked from the first post in this thread, I decided to try the following prompt to Bing Chat AI.

Please produce an original painting. A dark background. At the right is a candle, with a flame. At the middle is a lady who is wearing a long green dress. The face of the lady is lit by the candlelight.

Here is the picture that I consider the best of the four that were produced.

I am a beginner in producing art, and I do not have the expertise to judge whether the AI has produced a good artistic effect.

William

The A3 plus bleeds original is at 300 dots per inch.

The screen displays at maybe 96 dots per inch.

So the A3 plus bleeds original is in case I decide to get a print, whereas the one seventh size png is intended for screen display here.

The one seventh choice is influenced by the fact that when exporting as png the original height offered is 3508 pixels, so changing that to 501 is a convenient size that seems to work well in this forum.

William

When I am experimenting and learning I typically start with an A3 plus bleeds landscape document at 300 dots per inch. This is so that if I later decide that I would like a print of what I have produced, then the document is ready for me to produce a PDF document to upload to Viking Virtual Print House to get some prints (what they term Loose (as contrasted with a bound result of one of various kinds)). I usually choose colour prints on 350 gsm matt paper.

As a secondary result I may want to produce a png graphic for display on the web. Exporting from the A3 document as a png graphic initially offers a png of 4961 pixels by 3508 pixels, so I change the 3508 to become 501 and then when I click in the width box the 4961 changes to become 709.

This forum shows a smaller size within a post, but clicking on the image shows it larger. In fact, I did that and downloaded a copy as a "got back" test and upon opening it I found it to be 709 pixels by 501 pixels.

On the system that you are using, is the display not so good?

The most recent picture in this forum, which is not the one we have been discussing up to now, did not start as A3, it was started based on the png that had two golden ratio lines, one at 0.618 and one at 0.382 x 0.618.

So that is why the watercolour lines are much wider than those in the picture that we had been discussing.

William

As you mentioned higher dots per inch I was wondering if my 501 pixels high pictures displayed as very tiny.

William

On page 16 of John's book, in the picture Still Life with Stoneware Jar is the table top, which would be rectangular, expressed using a rotated parallelogram?

Where art and mathematics meet.

I wonder what are the angles.

The angle of the long edge of the parallelogram to the horizontal edge of the picture.

The smaller of the two internal angles of the parallelogram.

Hopefully I can use Affinity Designer to find out.

William

14 degrees

36 degrees

Yes, I did.

So to try a humble pastiche of John's picture using Affinity Designer, one can start with a rectangular table top much longer than wide and apply a rotation of 166 degrees and a shear of -58 degrees.

So, allowing for experimental error, it looks iike the -58 degrees relates to 90 degrees - 34 degrees.

William

I spy with my little eye something beginning with … ImpactPlus!!

An excellent result, if I may say so! The spheres don’t look 3D, but that’s to be expected under the circumstances.