I thought I'd stick the photo of my Tom Ellis watercolour into PS and see how it might look if I was to work on it some more. I overlaid the reference photo I'd used and discovered all the proportions were actually ok, apart from I'd made his face too wide. So of course I couldn't resist fiddling. Once I'd done that I got rid of the reference and tried enhancing the drawing with some linework and shading.
This is the result.

And now I have a dilemma. I'm running out of time with Bear Necessities to paint before Tuesday, and much as I'd like to have a go at the actual watercolour, I kind of like this version too. Plus I have no idea if I can get the watercolour version to look halfway decent. So - do I give up on the real painting and just print this out and take it to get it signed?
For those interested, this is the reference pic.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-03 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-03 10:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-03 10:35 pm (UTC)Your flickr pages aren't showing up for me. Maybe it's flickr. Let me fiddle.
Yeah, for whatever reason, nothing on flickr is showing up for me today, not even my own stuff.
Okay yeah, there they both are. I like the watercolor, actually--I think he'd have a nice reaction to signing something other than a straight photo, actually, but use your own judgement.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-04 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-04 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-04 08:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-04 10:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-04 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-05-05 02:12 pm (UTC)