Shadows in the park.

This is full of interest, Stephen!

Many thanks David.

Certainly catches the eye and has impact. Use of a camera and the photos produced - whether immediately or years later is a tool in the artist's workbox that artists of yesteryear would give their eye teeth for. The digital camera has been an economic extension of this, whilst the computer allows further manipulation. If you haven't already , read David Hockney's book " Secret Knowledge" - the "camera" has been in use a lot longer than than may have been thought. I now have over 10,000 digital photos - not all of use , but there for consideration.

Many thanks Mike, I often find the difficulty with painting from photos is deciding what to leave out, as the camera has no sense of what is interesting or boring.

Stephen , exactly the same applies with a photo as with facing the actual scene - the artist is still the author of the final painting. The sole advantage of a photo - as far as I am concerned - is that the artist does not have to contend with changing conditions. The photo is a fixed moment in time - the scene does not change. I still decide what goes in , what gets left out , what gets changed for convenience. A photo gives the artist time in making those decisions.

Always good Stephen

Many thanks Mike and Heather. I think in this case I quite chirpy, walking around in the sunshine after being mostly indoors with the week of gales and downpours. I do think our own mood influences our work.

lovely David.

Many thanks Judith.