I'm trying to recharge my mental batteries to make the final push to finish that stupid blossom picture, so I started going through photos of other pictures. I think I do that mostly just to remind myself that there are other things to paint and other ways to paint them.
So, here's a picture I was looking at. I'm kicking myself, because I don't know what I did with it. It might be in a box or an envelope. It wasn't a picture that worked very well, but the details in it are what fascinate me. The picture is probably 6 X 4 inches, but it's when I blow up photos of portions of it that the solidity of the layers becomes almost tangible. This is why I mentioned in an earlier post that I enjoy looking at some of my pictures under a magnifying glass. It's a great reminder of what makes some watercolors so fantastic to work with: The solids within them allow for layering and granulation effects that are unique.
First, the complete picture:
 |
| Ugh... the "sky" in this is really awful. I don't know why I even bothered adding the foreground object after putting in such a lame sky. A total mess. (I really need to look for this picture, because I'm not sure what kind of paper it's on. It doesn't look like hot press. That's going to bug me until I find the picture.) |
And then, details:
 |
| If this picture had just a plain white background, the central object would probably have a much more sculptural feel to it.The stuff on the left side has a "wrapped" look to it. I've done that in a couple other pictures and always enjoy when it comes out well. It's a cheap way of implying a curved surface when you're not good at modeling through shading.... |
 |
| When I first looked at this picture extremely close-up, this portion seemed almost startling in terms of dimensionality. The depth in this is, to me, remarkable. |
 |
| This part of the photo didn't come out as crisply as I would have liked. Some of the foreground stuff in the painting has wonderful solidity, and there are a few places where the shading / shadowing came out very well. |
So, there you go. Sometimes even my crappiest pictures have stuff within them that I can try to use in the future, hopefully in better, more complete pictures.
Edit, 12/31/14:
I'm sticking this next photo in just to show why I hate the sky in the picture above. This picture is one that resists being photographed. I've got some others I'll take photos of and see if I can get one to better show what I consider a "good" sky.
 |
| I probably should replace this photo with a smaller one, because if you click on the photo and view it on a computer monitor the picture shows up about five times its actual size. |
I think I made this one during the summer. The photo isn't black and white; the painting is. It's done entirely in gray. It's my standard small picture size: 3 1/2 X 5 1/2 inches. The sky is absolutely lovely in this when you see it in person, and it complements, rather than competes with, the landscape below. Those of you who are into the compositional "rules" have no doubt noticed that this one violates Rule No. 1 of landscapes / seascapes: Never put the horizon line in the middle. Ha ha, I guess this makes me a rebel.... well, okay, maybe not.... actually, the horizon is below the center, but all the placement of the horizon says in this picture is that roughly equal importance is placed on the sky and earth.... plus, it allows a relatively low viewpoint, some foreshortening of the foreground, and allowed me to push the horizon far into the distance.... see, there are other things to consider besides "rules."
No comments:
Post a Comment