Not only should he pay you for use of your image, but by copyright law, that image belongs to you and you should be given credit. I think legally he has to title it "study of...." and whatever the title of your image is. Doing a painting from someone else's photo is usually considered to be "student work." I cannot believe that any artist (painter) worth his salt and charging that much would even consider doing non-original work!
Gorgeous. It's on my bucket list!
I've used both Adorama and B&H for decades and have had rare problems. Both were prety easy to work with. They aren't as bad to try to talk you into something else if you know what you want.
I rarely go to Amazon because you're not really purchasing from Amazon but from someone else who lists on Amazon. No problems so far, but it's my LAST search.
I like the BW rendering. I've shot this both in color and in BW. The colors are gorgeous, but you see the designs better in BW. Kudos to you!
I am part of a group of juried artists in Arizona. We use two categories - one is "traditional photography" that is either film or digital but "corrected for color and density to match selected printer and all edits applied to the entire image." The other is "Photo-based Digital Art" and includes all edits above that of the first category. Our problem is that many photographers want to claim the image is "traditional" when we KNOW it has been edited heavily! Good luck. It seems no matter what you do, some just don't want to abide by the rules.
I travelled that same route in August. Good trip!
If you're new to the desert, simply doing a drive through it on a jeep road maybe can be really interesting. Our plants are different and intriguing. Too bad the flowers won't be out yet. One of my favorite hiking places is the First Water trail in the Supersititions. Also, if you like to hike, try Peralta. It has really good views from the top. If you like to 4WD, you can do Four Peaks. You can hike to the top from the parking lot.
No real fix that I know of. Do you have Photoshop? You might try using quadtones and see if that helps. It's tedious and I'm usually no more satisfied with the result than just translating to grayscale.
If you have the capability in your PP program, you might try using curves on the various tones. Sometimes that changes things.
The only real fix is to reshoot the scene with more density variation - like in a different season, perhaps.
Esther, the computer guru is a very successful computer fix-it guy with a fairly large company of his own. I don't know where he got his degree. I know he was able to salvage all of my pictures files off an external HD that had crashed when no one else could.
He recommends the "move" tool unless you want two copies of the file. What he told me was that using the "move" tool takes everything and puts it on another location. He said that "copy-paste" might NOT take everything and that if you delete the original you might lose something.
I had always used the "copy-paste" system. But a computer guru told me that occasionally when you do that the copy isn't a "real" file but a reference to the original, and should you then delete the original, the copy wouldn't be usable. I've never had that happen, but then I usually don't ever delete anything, either!
I think that the colors all have nearly the same density range (except for the sky) and that's why it doesn't work in B&W. There's not enough tonal range to be a good B&W. Just my opinion.
Love the last one of the arch. Colors are perfectly complimentary.
Thanks, everyone for looking and commenting!