File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
something of a /r/ for /p/
Theres a "pop art" exhibition in the lobby of my building, and this painting is up for sale for $3,000. Problem is I know its a tracing from a photograph and im trying to track down the original, anyone know the original photographer or the photoset or have the original picture?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
edit: someone on /b/ found the original, posted here for those that care (no one)

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution600 dpiVertical Resolution600 dpiImage Created2004:05:11 20:36:24Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1322Image Height1000
>> Anonymous
Well done. The power of the hive is shown once more. Pretty shitty to just trace someone else's work like dA faggot.
>> Anonymous
You should print out the photo and tape it on the wall next to the painting.
>> Anonymous
>>256844

Excellent idea. Give that man his free internets.
>> Anonymous
>>256844

Maybe, I sent him a facebook message expressing my MORAL OUTRAGE!!11!! and asking if he got permission to use that photograph, its unlikely but if he has then there's no reason to be a jerk off and put up the original photograph.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
haha that's such a shitty painting
>> Anonymous
>>256873

I know, it looks like one of your photographs.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>256874
>> Anonymous
still lolling
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
>>256809
>>this painting is up for sale for $3,000.

Rage. That's enough reason to be a jerk off and put the photo next to it for me.
>> Anonymous
>>257478
quite agreed.

any update here?
>> Anonymous
>>256873
The ones you have in your deviantart's favourites are far, far worse, fag.
>> Anonymous
DO IT FAGGOT
>> Anonymous
god damn i love titties
>> Anonymous
srlsy did OP print out the photo and post it up next to the painting?

faggot shouldn't get his 3,000 bucks for it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>257592
>>257569
>>257544
>>257478

Will do next time i'm in the building (monday), haven't heard back from the artist yet.

This is another one of his pieces, haven't seen it before but posting it up here just in case anyone else recognizes it.
>> Anonymous
I don't see why everyone is raging. It's called pop art.
>> rule fag !!Pnee5uQ1agV
/p/ - Photography

1. Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.
2. Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots.
3. Even though EXIF data is made available when encoded, please post as much relevant technical information as possible, such as: camera, kit, lens, etc.
4. Include a short description with your photograph, such as when and where it was photographed and under what circumstances.
5. As with the art critique board, only constructive criticism will be tolerated.
>> Anonymous
>>257646

I've definitely seen that before.
I don't have the photo it's based on, but I know it exists.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's the painting being sold, with price tag.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon DIGITAL IXUS 860 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:09:16 13:39:57Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length4.60 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1304Image Height1256RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>257649

ho ho I just uploaded photo I took my self :V
>> Anonymous
>>257659

RAGE!!!!!
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
     File :-(, x)
Ill just leave this here...
>> Anonymous
>>257668
shopped
and a lazy shop too
>> Anonymous
>>257668

Problem is everyone knows thats a photo manipulation, unlike with the OPs stuff.
>> Anonymous
>>257668

Dude, the whole POINT of this is that it was a copy, and that he made multiple copies of that copy. It was about the commodification of art, celebrity, and the individual.

Also at least Warhol had to significantly change the image in order to screenprint it. Nobody is going to mistake his print of Monroe for a direct copy of a photograph of her.
>> Anonymous
ITT: some weeaboo fag with some painting skill and no creativity becomes the next Andy Warhol.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>256809

The painter should have done better job copying it. Now (s)he did too exact copy. Just look at that other tit. It looks way more bigger than the other.
A thing I would have fixed!
Also, the painting should be more about the tits.
>> Anonymous
>>257821
>way more bigger

Ah gone done seen what you seen thur
>> Anonymous
At this point I honestly just want to see more of the bunnygirl photos.
>> Anonymous
>>257821
i cant unsee it, youve screwed up the bunny's titties for me :(