Crossstitchforum - A FREE forum for Cross Stitchers

I am going to do something I really don't want to do, but feel I must. I have been biting my tongue for a week and finally need to say it.

I am going to express how disappointed I am in this picture.

I am not the slightest bit disappointed in Vanessa's stitching, it is, as usual, done with skill, speed and precision. Vanessa's skill is awesome. I am sorry to say the result is far from being up to Vanessa's skill level. It is approaching barely adequate. From the wrong side.

The problem, as far as I can see it, is that Vanessa is accurately stitching a chart that was created with nowhere near as much skill or care as Vanessa is stitching it.

I would like to cite several things in evidence. Firstly, the HaED mockup. The mockup is faithful to what Vanessa is stitching. This can be seen here: http://heavenandearthdesigns.com/images ... orld_1.jpg

But, and it is a big 'but', it's not terribly close to the what the painting looks like. No, I'll rephrase that. It's a long way from what the original picture looks like.

Take a look at the Wikipedia page on the painting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light ... (painting). They have an admittedly grainy image, as shown below (The Wikipedia image is PublicDomain):

Look at the top centre of the image between the trees. Do you see branches or a black blob? The black blob visible in the HaED does not need to be there. Should not be there.
Then, above the figure on the left, in the painting you can see a corbel to the left of the ivy, lit from the underside. Why is there a black blob in the HaED conversion where the corbel should be?

Now, onto the areas where I have most concern about the conversion.
In Vanessa's stitching and the HaED mockup, I cannot see any details in the figure's hair, it's all black with an odd highlight stitch that makes the hair look black with a reflected glow. This changes the picture considerably from the original intention and is poor, very poor.
Then the figure's beard.
Look at the HaED mockup of the beard. It looks like a modern style beard, close trimmed to the chin and possibly, just possibly, a hairy neck also fairly close trimmed to the neck. The other possibility is a double chin. Which is RADICALLY different from the original picture, where the figure has a beard that juts out and projects downwards at least half the neck length. This is a catastrophically bad part of the conversion, it looks so different from the original image you simply can't see what the original artist intended. Also, and this compounds the poor effect, this catastrophically bad bit of conversion is at the focal point of the image, where the maximum conversion precision needs to be. So, the worst bit of conversion is where it needs to be best. This should be unacceptable to HaED and anyone who wants the image.

Now, can I can hear those who want to defend such poor output from HaED and say that 'you cannot get a better conversion within the limitations of an 88 colour conversion'.
I must contradict that and say: You can get a better conversion. And to prove it:
Here is one,


The conversion uses 89 solid DMC colours (which was the closest I could obtain to the 88 from the HaED) and was developed from the Wikipedia image, slightly colour tweaked and softened to get roughly the same tint as the HaED conversion. The colour tweaks took me 30 seconds using PaintShopPro 5.
The image is the chart image output from a charting program at a scale of 1 pixel = 1 stitch and is the size of the HaED finished image. Every pixel is identical to a DMC thread colour and is the same colour as a stitch would be. There is a corbel on the house, there are tree branches in the sky instead of a black blob, the figure's hair looks brown, not black and wow, he has a beard and not a hairy neck or double chin - exactly as the artist painted the picture. This is close to what the HaED conversion should have been like.

The HaED conversion is so bad in the particular areas I have highlighted, if it were me, I'd ask for my money back. I am extremely unimpressed with HaED in the fact they put such a poor conversion up for sale. It shows that the quality of conversion was not a consideration at all when this chart was put up for sale.

I am so disappointed for you Vanessa, your skill deserves so much better from the chart.

Regards,

Richard.

Interesting. I think where I went wrong thinking the image of the stitching was too dark was because I was using this as a reference:

So that was my mistake for not paying attention and thinking it was dark and lacked detail because of a flash problem.

Thank you for your honest opinion Richard but now I feel like putting it in the bin

Oh dear . Richard, I see what you mean, and in awe as I am with anyone stitching a HAED, I have often felt that some of their conversions can be a little careless (among other things their practice of sometimes including a colour which is used for all of half a dozen stitches). Like you, I applaud the stitchers and in this case Vanessa in particular, but am cautiously critical (cautiously because I've never designed anything this big in cross stitch myself) of the conversions. You, with your expertise in the area of conversions, would pick up on these things with greater accuracy than most people.
But oh, Vanessa, if that is really true then I weep for you and with you, and I don't know what else to say or what advice to offer. For now I will offer only a

OH I truly hope that you don't bin this piece. Maybe I'm not picky enough but I think you have done a beautiful job and that the result is gorgeous. and most important, it shows how much love you have put into it. I really don't want to turn this into a debate about the pattern. I just want you to know that I think that continuing with this piece if you still love it is what matters. And like Mabel I am sending you lots of

Carole

Hi Vanessa
Please don't put this fabulous piece in the bin. HAED's are beautiful to look at and stitch and just keeping going with it and I am sure you will love it when you have completed it so no matter what others are saying about the chart.
Happy stitching
Amanda

I've been refraining from saying anything because this isn't the place to roast HAED for their patterns. But I feel like the information presented has been one-sided and not fair so I am going to be the devil's advocate.

The HAED pattern and the image posted by Allyn are of the original oil painting signed 1853 and on display at Keble College. The image posted by Richard is a smaller pastel done around the same time and is at the Manchester City Art Gallery. This has not been an apples to apple comparison folks. To further muddy the waters, Ally posted a perfect example of how hard it can be to find a quality photo of art. How are you to know which one is accurate unless you have seen each artwork in person and viewed in natural light?

So really this boils down to liking or not liking the image that HAED used to create their pattern, and to a lesser degree their ability to convert it to a "good" pattern. I used quotes there because everyone has a different idea of what a good pattern is. If anyone living in or visiting the UK would like to visit the original and photograph it using professional quality lighting and lenses then we can settle what the original art really looks like and whether or not HAED made a good choice of source image.

I took HAED's source image and converted it to a pattern using the same software that they use and can easily replicate their pattern. However, it becomes a subjective matter as to how you might adjust the image brightness, contrast, and colours for best result. I guarantee that what I think looks best using HAED's source image and software isn't going to be the same as your ideas.

So let's put HAED's source image though Richard's program, set for 87 DMC colours, scale to the same size as the HAED and....


Is that better than the HAED? That's a subjective so there is no right answer. Personally I dislike the grainy nature of the result, it looks like sand paper (abrasive paper UK). The HAED mock-up still leaves a suggestion of grass at His feet, but in this one He's standing on black and green sand. The HAED/PM mock-up shows a hint of the light beams coming from the right side of the lantern which are lost here.

Here is a close up of the background near the top:


Raise your hand if you think stitching that would be fun!
For completeness here is a mock-up from PM that would be similar to the HAED pattern:



Well, ok then. What options does the average person have other than HAED?
Artecy - http://artecy.com/the-light-of-the-worl ... titch.html" target="_blank (From a third version of the painting!)
christiancrossstitch.com - http://www.christiancrossstitch.com/the ... eworld.pdf" target="_blank

Ok then. HAED remains the best pattern of this painting that is commercially available. Please continue in confidence Vanessa.

Vanessa, please please don't be discouraged!!

Richard, and I mean this seriously, perhaps you should approach HAED about their conversions?

Thanks everyone for your kind comments. I will keep at it. I have done too much to give up now. I do agree with Steve that it does depend on the image used. There are 3 copies of this painting that the artist made after all. My favourite is the one hanging in St. Paul’s cathedral which I have been to see and that painting was very dark.

Oh heck. (Well, that's nicer than the words I am saying to myself in my head)

I really didn't want to spoil your party Vanessa. I am so sorry to make you feel bad about it. You are such an amazing stitcher that I am utterly in awe of you. But, I honestly feel that this conversion is not anywhere as good as you are, and is not up to your abilities. And, quite frankly I don't think the conversion is fit for sale.

Can I please ask you not to do anything rash with it. Just think about it in slow time and make your decision based on what you think, not anyone else - not me, not anyone else, just you.
It is yours; if you think I'm talking complete rubbish, then my opinion is irrelevant. It is only your opion that matters.

[Now to add an addendum to consider SteveM & Serinde's posts that went up during the time I was composing my reply]

I think Steve has put up a reasonable counter argument that is somewhat in favour of the HaED. However, I still feel very uncomfortable about the quality of conversion of the face & beard. This is the point of the picture where the whole composition directs your attention, and this is where the conversion is really poor. Had I only been concerned about the corbels and the sky, I'd have kept quiet. They are not the focus, the face is. There are parts of the image that do not convert well, I agree. That is where a bit of skill and artistic flair is needed to photo-edit the image to get a conversion that is closer to the original. Why did HaED not do this to this image to overcome the limitations of the first conversion and iterate to a better result? The sky conversion of the HaED original through my program is not great. With a bit of area selection and no dithering over that area, the complexity could be reduced with no loss of detail. That is where the skill of the convertor needs to come in - basically to get a result that is up to Vanessa's skill, the convertor needs to be an accomplished stitcher and an accomplished software user.
Regards,

Richard.

vanessanjf wrote: I will keep at it

I am so, so glad Vanessa! I truly think that your stitching is beautiful and if I had the patience and skills to X-stitch such a picture, it would be displayed proudly in my home.

When you think about the different techniques used to create a painting and a cross stitch piece, one is done with brushes and the other sewn onto squares, I personally don't expect my cross stitch pieces to look exactly like a painting, you will never get the same level of detail from any conversion that will exactly replicate the art, but that's just it folks it's not meant to, it's sewing on squares.
But what lots of these companies do (including Haed) is nothing short of a miracle, I enjoy and appreciate all the amazing works in progress that get shown on here because quite simply I've never got my head around just how close to the images we are able to produce.

Vanessa I am glad you are going to continue with this piece it's stunning

Vanessa, I am glad you're going to stick with it.

I have voiced my opinion in the past that HaED does a really crappy job doing their conversions, which is a shame because they get permission to convert some really lovely artwork. I don't know if they don't know how to do a better job or if they sell enough charts to chart collectors (people who buy the charts and never actually stitch them) that they don't have to make an effort. However, my biggest complaint in the past was that they would display images of the original artwork to sell the charts which was a gross misrepresentation because the charts didn't look like that and people didn't know until they'd invested time and money into the project, got partway through and realized the conversion was awful. And we know that's true because I can recall at least half a dozen times right here in this forum where that happened.

At least more recently, HaED is showing a mockup of the actual conversion so you can see what the project will look like and make a decision before you buy whether the result is going to be what you want. The result Vanessa is getting is true to the mockup, so that's all that really matters. I made a mistake when I looked at an entirely different image and used it to compare. I really need to applaud Richard for having the courage and respect for his fellow stitchers to voice his honest opinion. I know that no matter what I do, Richard will be honest with me and not just stroke my feelings.

And just as an aside note, Vanessa, I'd love to see you do something with 200 colors and (dare I say it?) blended threads.

Allyn wrote:
And just as an aside note, Vanessa, I'd love to see you do something with 200 colors and (dare I say it?) blended threads.

My other project The adoration of the kings (Golden kite) has 200 colours including blends. That’s why it is so nice to do this much simpler project.

poppy wrote:

vanessanjf wrote: I will keep at it

I am so, so glad Vanessa! I truly think that your stitching is beautiful and if I had the patience and skills to X-stitch such a picture, it would be displayed proudly in my home.

I am so very happy that you are continuing on with this project and isn't it interesting that the artist did 3 of this same picture!!!

It really is a quagmire when converting old paintings using one version or other and I can understand Richard's way of looking at it. I do not like black anything, to my mind there is far too much of it around , in clothing, in decoration and even in rooms sometimes too apparently.

However you, Vanessa, are the one who chose this particular conversion because you had seen the original which was also quite dark and that is all that matters. It is a reminder of standing there seeing the original in wonderful surroundings and that is that.

I am delighted to know that you are continuing with it as charted and I look forward with interest to seeing the next update.

Vanessanjf wrote:My other project The adoration of the kings (Golden kite) has 200 colours including blends. That’s why it is so nice to do this much simpler project.

Oh good grief. I forgot about that. I am such a mess today.

SteveM wrote:....Here is a close up of the background near the top:


Raise your hand if you think stitching that would be fun! ...

I don't want to keep cluttering Vanessa's thread, but I have to comment on this. I am stitching that right now. No, that THAT pattern, but one that looks just like it. It isn't hard, and yes, it's as fun as any other stitching I've done. Large areas of solid color look flat and uninteresting and the transition to a different shade is very noticeable. That 'graininess' you see actually makes for very subtle transitions of color so the shades flow seamlessly one into the next. Just like two threads blend together, so do stitches next to each other. Looking at it close up, yes, it looks grainy, but stand back and take in the whole picture and the colors in that area are more alive than just having flat blobs of colors with clearly defined edges as shown in the other example. We aren't just stitching squares. When you convert a painting, you're stitching pixels. Take a digital image of any painting and zoom in about 1000% and you can see each individual pixel and the area will look just like your grainy example.

I am so pleased that you are carrying on with the work.

Your are a wonderful stitcher and any work that you will do will look awesome.

Keep up the amazing work and look forward to seeing the next instalment

Doreen

I’m so glad that you’re sticking with it, Vanessa. When I read that you felt like putting it in the bin, my heart sank and I could have cried. Only those of us who stitch know how much time and work goes into it.

I think Richard has made some very valid points, though. I seem to recall ages ago that someone complained in the forum about a bad HAED conversion. I think it was of ‘12 Dancing Princesses’ (sorry, I don’t know how to link it on my phone) and the background of the stitching was a lot darker and less detailed than the original. Perhaps HAED are trying to save us from too much confetti? Let’s face it, most of us find confetti tedious and would rather do it only on detailed areas like faces. However, I think there’s a sensible middle ground.

Richard, just out of interest what are your thoughts on Golden Kite’s conversions? I’ve started Stitchers Retreat (a freebie from HAED) but I’m wondering whether to pay for the same pattern from GK if I’m likely to get a better result. Maybe we should start a new thread on this topic rather than hijacking Vanessa’s SAL?

Bizzie Lizzie:
I have not bought any of Golden Kite's charts, but the conversions, mock-ups and results look exceptional. I don't know what software they use, but think it is probably something they have written themselves. No commercial software I have seen gives results as good as theirs. If they have not written the software themselves & use commercial stuff, then they must spend a huge time after conversion tweaking the results.

I have wondered what made 'The Adoration of the Kings' quite so remarkable, and the numbers of colours/blends obviously contributes. The sheer scale also makes a mark, and the final icing on the cake is Vanessa's skill. It's a chart that's as good as she is & the result is close to being impossible to better.

One thing I will say is, the GK charts are a LOT more expensive than HaED's, and that could well reflect the time & effort spent in getting them absolutely spot on.

Regards,

Richard