Picture attribution?
 

Welcome
This picture curiosity is ?

The picture is interesting, but it is better to take a picture of a group of animals under the tree and architecture in the middle and far planes. Their statement is essential for the qualification picture. Also take a picture with higher resolution in daylight seems to be a strong color distortion and it is not clear from what.

[QUOTE=Artoil-A;3324721]Picture interesting, but it is better to take a picture of a group of animals under the tree and architecture in the middle and far planes. Their statement is essential for the qualification picture. Also take a picture with higher resolution in daylight seems to be a strong color distortion and it is not clear from cego@
Artoil-A, enough to rave(!) and to lead people astray!
The picture is a terrible copy, written by a man who imagines himself an artist. Represents no value.

Are You now just Artoil-A 've described. :D

[QUOTE=Балагур;3324831]Artoil-A, enough to rave(!) and to lead people astray!
The picture is a terrible copy, written by a man who imagines himself an artist. Poses no tsennosti@

Not fantasize. At that resolution pictures and obvious errors of color can't say.
I am currently working on paintings of this genre.
Prepatorium - compare...
Though now see the practical application of this picture-there are technologies for reconstruction of images. And this picture, using as a thumbnail, it is possible to restore to full-fledged stylized paintings of the Dutch. The plot can be used on the boxes..

[QUOTE=Artoil-A;3324721]Picture interesting, but it is better to take a picture of a group of animals under the tree and architecture in the middle and far planes. Their statement is essential for the qualification picture. Also take a picture with higher resolution in daylight seems to be a strong color distortion and it is not clear from cego@ Typical message forum Troll who is wasting time poster, forcing it to grub with meaningless fotografirovaniya "in daylight", answer vague questions about the work, which he never attributive and certainly will never buy.

[QUOTE=Кирилл Сызранский;3325071]Typical message forum Troll who is wasting time poster, forcing it to grub with meaningless fotografirovaniya "in daylight", answer vague questions about the work, which he never attributive and certainly [B][B]never kupit@

Again not aware of. I don't buy the picture. I make and sell. Sold hundreds of paintings.
As the owner of the paintings there is a sense to appreciate it. I have seen the technique of brush work in the formation of the crown. And the price seems low. And other information can already tell you about the prototypes of this painting and its morphological characteristics...
By the way, you don't understand the technology works of art collectives. Hit them in the hands of this picture, they could put this sketch in the series without any attributee.

are you sure You copy? What picture?

Like elements in the simplified copies of paintings by the artists of the family de wold. Sit prosmatrivaju on the Internet their work is intrigued by modernity. With them I wanted to compare. At least to determine the level of copyist interpreter. At the same time and looking at other Dutch. At least I want to evaluate the possibility of selling on the open market. If the picture (thumbnail) selling, you have to untwist the price. Work somewhere on the face.

And then! The Milioner'and by definition can't be a bad cheap paintings :)