awesome.. i showed this to my 14 yr old sis who is better at paint than me..i said "guess which program made this?" she replied photoshop..i said nope.! when i told her it was paint..she was gobsmacked.
If I could make something that amazing, I would put in the time/effort. I'm sure most artists put more time into other projects.
amzing.really amazing.Microsoft paint?hmmm...just look like a real picture taken from a digital camera.
Amazing indeed, however, if the waters had more movement in it... with ripples and more reflections from the sky, it would look real!
Here's the part I don't understand: why would anybody so painstakingly mimic a different medium, including its downsides? It looks like someone shot a digital ( or slide film, scanned ) photograph, and then copied it pixel-for-pixel into an empty document. If somebody is going to Paint all of this, why would they include flaws in what they're mimicking? Look at all the overexposure. That's not what the scene would look like if you were standing there, with some places so bright that they're pure white - every pixel rgb(255, 255, 255). There were details there, lost behind the white, but a camera can only record so much tonal range between pure black and pure white, and clips everything beyond its range. It's clear this isn't exactly a photograph - the sides of the buildings are too smooth, look more like they were rendered in Bryce. Still, why can't we see what's behind all the overexposure? If it took six months to paint, why not put in an extra two weeks to perfect it? Not that there isn't beauty here.