Hey - thanks for the info! Sucks if true. I took a closer look at both to compare and can see some differences, in the black splotches on the fox for example. Upon further search, Natural History Museum UK says he was shooting around North London. Could the same or similar fox art have been painted there? Idk!
Its possible, like I said the signature may be behind that grass - but it is just too bad it is not credited regardless. If you were the photographer, you would think you would look for the signature/source of the art you are photographing to credit it.
Hey - thanks for the info! Sucks if true. I took a closer look at both to compare and can see some differences, in the black splotches on the fox for example. Upon further search, Natural History Museum UK says he was shooting around North London. Could the same or similar fox art have been painted there? Idk!
Its possible, like I said the signature may be behind that grass - but it is just too bad it is not credited regardless. If you were the photographer, you would think you would look for the signature/source of the art you are photographing to credit it.