|
Post by papillon on Mar 28, 2008 10:45:33 GMT -5
Well guys I must have gotten indigestion from all those chocolates I last painted because I have not done anything since. Probably it's for lack of anything inspirational. Anyway, recently I scanned a couple of photos I took some years ago while we were holidaying in the very northern English town of Berwick-upon-Tweed and Scotland. The second one is a pretty typical scene of any British coastal village. For the first I had in mind to do only the landscape, leaving put all the humans including my hubby planted there in the center. If I were to attempt any of these what medium would you suggest. The second does seem to lend itself to a watercolour though I'm still petrified at the idea. So, if for the moment we leave out the watercolour option what would you suggest for either of them. Thanks in advance for your input.
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Mar 28, 2008 10:49:04 GMT -5
I love the first picture! Won't you include those cute boat shack buildings? I'd vote for pastel or acrylic for either of them.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Mar 28, 2008 11:17:22 GMT -5
Of course Andrea - they are the whole point of the picture - so original looking. But I realise what led you to believe I would not include them.... it's one of my usual typos. Instead of writing "leaving out all the humans" I wrote "leaving put" ;D - which might give the impression I intended to paint the people in landscape and excluding the boat shacks, when in actual fact I meant the other way round... ok have I confused you enough?! Going for pastels for me is the easy way out.... though acrylics are more interesting because of the challenge. What to do? what to do?
|
|
|
Post by grampybone on Mar 28, 2008 12:04:09 GMT -5
If you do paint the first picture, it will be hard to show the buildings for what they are. The viewer of your painting may think you were painting in a surrealist way (or worse, they may think you made an error with your drawing or perspective). It is a beautiful picture though...I've never seen a shack like that before.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Mar 28, 2008 12:14:44 GMT -5
The viewer of your painting may think you were painting in a surrealist way Now that in itself might make it interesting! But just out of curiosity Grampy, why do you say that?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 28, 2008 12:21:16 GMT -5
OOO Rose when in Rome ... or something akin to that I would say since they are British I'd be attempting the watercolours !
Now coming from me who hasn't posted a single piece of artwork in well over 5 months ...
I would take everything I say with a grain of salt!
I love the shacks looks like left over ship hulls that were flipped over ...or maybe those were Noah's previous attempts at building the ark and he just left them lying around.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Mar 28, 2008 14:21:14 GMT -5
...or maybe those were Noah's previous attempts at building the ark and he just left them lying around. LOL Tim! You always come up with something hilarious. They could very well be Noah's trial pieces... if you notice he also made each next one a little bigger than the one before.... took him some time to figure out the right size!
|
|
|
Post by grampybone on Mar 28, 2008 14:42:00 GMT -5
The viewer of your painting may think you were painting in a surrealist way Now that in itself might make it interesting! But just out of curiosity Grampy, why do you say that? A viewer of a painting of these shacks might not realize that the actual shacks look that way with the strange shape. They may think you are making an artistic statement somehow by warping the roofs that way. Its a problem I've had when painting unusual objects. Although... I realize I may be showing my lack of culture if these shacks are common over there. I've just never seen anything like that here in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Mar 28, 2008 15:26:00 GMT -5
Thank you Grampy. And I too had never seen anything like those shacks before. I don't know if they are at all common in Britain but that is the only place where I saw them. This picture keeps intriguing me more and more.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Mar 28, 2008 17:11:00 GMT -5
You could perhaps get away with acrylics on the odd little huts but definitely watercolor on the other! Come on, Rose, stretch yourself! You know you can do it and it's such a rush to complete something you're a little afraid to even start.
We'll be watching for whatever you do and we know you'll do it well!
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Mar 28, 2008 21:06:31 GMT -5
I've never seen those cute little upturned Noah's arks before and I come from the North of England so they are certainly not common.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Mar 29, 2008 6:41:50 GMT -5
Yes Jan, the second picture would make the typical English watercolour. I might attempt either of them once I get the necessary umph! So keep watching this space. Oh, and one other thing. The horizon line in the first picture, though perfectly straight as it should be is slightly diagonal because of the angle from which it was taken. If I were to paint it should I keep that sort of angle or should I make the horizon line perfectly horizontal? (I know it sounds funny put that way but you know what I mean. )
|
|
|
Post by jan on Mar 29, 2008 9:09:33 GMT -5
Yes Jan, the second picture would make the typical English watercolour. I might attempt either of them once I get the necessary umph! So keep watching this space. Oh, and one other thing. The horizon line in the first picture, though perfectly straight as it should be is slightly diagonal because of the angle from which it was taken. If I were to paint it should I keep that sort of angle or should I make the horizon line perfectly horizontal? (I know it sounds funny put that way but you know what I mean. ) I played with the horizon line in my photo program and think it looks best straight but then the huts look a little strange. If you straighten the horizon, you may have to adjust the huts also. I think it looks ok as it is in the photo but suggest you play with the horizon to see what pleases you.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 5, 2008 10:29:21 GMT -5
I said to watch this space so to keep your interest may I kindly inform you that I have started the second picture in watercolours. Already I think I made a very big mistake of going to dark on the sky. I will continue what I have started though and then you tell me!
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 5, 2008 11:00:22 GMT -5
Rose, it may not be too late to change your painting if you want to. If the darkest colors aren't too staining, you may be able to wet the area then press tissues, or paper towels or an old paint rag into the paint. This will lift some of the color and you can repeat the process until the area is as light as you want it to be. I may try this on the Japanese Magnolia painting background.
I can't wait to see what you end up doing with that photo! I know it will be good as your instincts are great.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 5, 2008 11:14:13 GMT -5
Oh, I forgot to ask, are you going to paint this as is or brighten it up a little? I love the scene but the photo is kind of dark and the value is pretty much the same all over. I know you know about the value so I guess I'm interested in how you paint it!
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 5, 2008 11:35:56 GMT -5
Jan I have already tried to lighten it up the way you described. I thin I let the paint dry too mush though. I did lift some off but not as much as I would have liked to. The colours will be a little warmer than in the picture I think but now with the sky so dark perhaps it will be better to keep it a little somber and call it - Looks like rain! It is after all a North England seen - and it does tend to rain a lot there, even in August!
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 7, 2008 8:52:57 GMT -5
Om here's the finished piece. The biggest problem I have is with the sky. I started out wet in wet but then I wanted to add darker values to the bottom edge of some of the clouds. All I ended up with were a lot of hard edges that I really wasn't looking for. Please critique and advise. I still find watercolours very difficult though enjoyable as far as the painting goes. Also I think I still have some trouble with mixing a nice grey.... so please do advise.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 7, 2008 9:10:02 GMT -5
OOO Rose I think your style lends itself very well to water colours .I think your greys are fine !
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Apr 7, 2008 20:03:55 GMT -5
I've never done any watercolour so can't offer any advice on techniques. I love the grass in the foreground, the boats and the landscape in the background. I'm not getting an impression of water though and the house windows seem a little too white. I like the sky at the top and the left of the picture, they are smoother. I can see whales in the clouds on the right! LOL! In general I think it is very good Rose. What size is it?
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 8, 2008 7:05:50 GMT -5
I know how difficult watercolors are so I do think you've done a good job for being such a newbie at it. I do agree with Andrea though and don't think the water reads as water but I can't really help with it as I haven't done much water and don't know how to do it myself.
However, with the sky, I think I can help a little & this may work for the water also. Mix up a nice puddle of cobalt blue (or pthalo blue for a darker color) and burnt sienna - actually mix one puddle fairly strong (using just a little water). Then take some of that mixture and water it down to a medium value. Take some of the mixture and water it down some more to a light value.
Decide on the value you want your sky, remembering that w/c dry lighter, then wet the sky area with plain water, wait until it loses it's sheen then "sweep" an area of the sky with your color mixture. Don't cover the entire sky area but just let it bleed into adjacent areas. Don't try to shape clouds but be aware of where you want them and sweep your brush around those areas.
Clouds generally are darker at the bottom then get wispier at the top. After your initial sweep of the sky is dry, you can wet the area of the sky under the cloud bottoms & re-glaze to get the darker value. Just be careful not to go too dark. You get the hard edges because you didn't wet your area far enough to let the paint fade naturally by dispersement. You can correct that in the future by either using a larger wet area to begin with or by wetting and softening/scrubbing a little on the hard edges.
Anyway, you can practice this on a scrap piece of paper. I'm beginning to understand that you don't actually paint with w/c but try to control the color and placement of the paint. Does that make sense? Most of watercolor is dropping paint into any area &, for the most part, letting it do it's thing with just a little help from you. This is NOT easy especially coming from a "painting" background such as oils, acrylics, pastels etc.
But you're doing great, just keep practicing. It's great to see you branching out.
|
|
|
Post by papillon on Apr 8, 2008 11:43:29 GMT -5
Thank you all for your responses. Yes, Andrea I too see the whales in the sky - as well as a lot of blotches! As for the water (although it looks better in real life since the camera seems to have overemphasized the green) I realise with hindsight that any strokes in water have to be perfectly horizontal, unless they are there to represent waves. Jan that was a really a very informative piece about mixing a nice grey. Thank you so much. I did start out wet in wet int he sky - it was when I got the brilliant idea of adding darker values at the bottom of the clouds that I did not rewet, or not enough anyway. This will take more study but I will come up with a decent piece that is not a tutorial one day!
|
|
|
Post by jan on Apr 9, 2008 7:21:34 GMT -5
Well, I didn't come up with the color combinations - I'd just been reading one of my art books and that happened to be something the artist recommended (Betty Denton). Anyway, please don't give up! I'm having a heck of a time learning some of these techniques and it would be very nice to learn together! You always seem to "get it" so much quicker than I do!
|
|