Thread: In need of some input

Hmm. The only thing that stands out is that the water (I'm guessing it's water, because of the angle of perspective) looks a little too much like sky. Maybe add a little more detail as far as ripples or a little more dark blue to give the water a little depth. Other than that, I'd say it's looking pretty good.

Yeah, the problem with that is the river is at the base of the cliff which is really far away from the observer perspective. To get an idea, if you look really close, there are cacti near it. There is also a little more detail than you can make out in the picture, its not that great quality because I didn't use a flash. I will have to think about adding some more.

Man, I can't think of anything to add in it. The only spot that's a little plain is on the ground where all the small hills are. Everything else looks great!

Maybe some small land animals or some more cacti or something? I'm not that great of an artist so I don't know.

Ps: How much damage does that guy with the sword think he's gonna do? lol

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Yeah, the problem with that is the river is at the base of the cliff which is really far away from the observer perspective. To get an idea, if you look really close, there are cacti near it. There is also a little more detail than you can make out in the picture, its not that great quality because I didn't use a flash. I will have to think about adding some more.

Nah, I mean the big body of blue in the background. That's my mistake,though. At first, I thought it was water, as if it were a large lake or something like that, but then, at closer inspection, I see that there is actually a cloud, so it must be the sky, yes? I can see this now.

With that being the case, I think my only real argument I have is that, as the scene seems to be shown at a somewhat downward/diagonal angle (which is why you can actually see the curve in the mountain road, from above) the horizon would actually be much higher in the picture. The mountains, and the line where the land meets the sky, would probably be up around where the birds are, showing distance. The sky really dominates the picture, and makes it look like the mountain area is actually a cliff, and this scene is taking place a couple of thousand feet above sea-level, because there is so much sky behind/above where the land ends.

That is just how I see it, though.

Well this is the desert, so those mountains are at an extreme distance.

its kind of like this Except the perspective is from the road along the cliff, about 100 feet above the desert floor.

Well I mailed it off, so no adding anything now, but I'd still like to hear what people think about it.

Xaqaria,
There is a technique called lifting that can change your water color, to an extent.
Depending on how opaque the color and how sedimentary the pigment, you can to a degree lift some of the existing paint.
By wetting the surface, letting the water soak into the paper and then taking an absorbent material, you can blot the area of concern a number of times and get surprising results.
~ (not that I have ever had to use this method. )
It also helps with the heavier weight paper you are using. I.E., 300lbs.
Just make sure you do not wet the paper to the extend to which it gets other areas of the work wet as well.
I hope if you did not already know this technique, that it may come in handy on your next painting.
water color is a very difficult media. It really is when you are doing a painting as occupied as your painting is.

Because your painting seems to have a individualistic theme to it, we would, in the future need to have some information on what ideas you may be trying to capture for whomever you are doing the piece for.

I look forward to seeing some more of your work.

I'm familiar with lifting, although I wouldn't call the results "surprising. No matter what you'll always have a shadow of the old image, and it tends to degrade the paper significantly. Also, this is done on cheap paper (not watercolor specific) so it really wouldn't work all that well anyway.

I'm curious though, is there something that you think needed to be "lifted?" I'm wondering why you decided to tell me how I could alter the painting without telling me what you thought needed to be altered.

In reality, I'm pretty happy with how everything that is on the paper now came out. I just felt like there might be some bit of detail missing that I couldn't quite pin down. After reading the relatively few responses in this thread, I'm not sure what to make of my own confidence since the only people who had much to say seemed to be saying that I should change large portions of the picture.

Keep in mind, its water color so I can't change anything thats already there.

With that said, I felt you may have wanted an alternative. That is all.

I do feel that your painting is lacking in composition.
What is your focal point?
With all shadows in similar contrast, it appears very one dimensional. With out contrast, it lacks depth.
It also is very busy. Maybe you have too much going on. It confuses the viewer.
It also does not do justice to the water color medium with out the best paper. The washes do not travel or spread as they should.
I hope I have not come across too critical. That is my honest opinion.

Best regards - Howie

Deserts don't really offer much contrast; the sun is the only light source. As for no contrast in the entire painting, I really can't disagree with you more. It goes from bright blue sky to foreboding black clouds; from stark but bright desert to chaotic city burning and roiling with smoke. From one lone man leaping from the hood of a dodge charger careening flaming off of a cliff to a 200 foot tall winged monstrosity laying waste to the landscape. I don't really know how to put more contrast in to this or any painting.

As far as being busy; thats kind of the point. This is 18"x24", and although its far from the biggest painting I've ever done, its big enough that I could portray helter skelter armageddonesque destruction with enough detail so that the viewer has to let their eyes roam over the painting to catch all of the details. This is the Lord of Darkness destroying an entire city; it needs to be 'busy.'

I used the paper I did so that I could use a specific technique to create the smoke. You can't really tell in this picture but in person, the smoke looks a lot more life like. I dropped puddles of water on to the paper and then injected ink into the 'bubble' The thinner paper soaks up the water enough and then dries in such a way as to spread the pigment giving what I can only describe as a "smokey" effect (I realize thats not the best way to describe smoke). Also, you may say it doesn't do the medium justice, but if I were going for realism I would have used a different style. This is a cartoon realism, and I think the muted but vibrant colors that I get with this paper fit it fairly well.

Its not that I don't appreciate your criticism, or that I think you are over critical; its just that I completely disagree with you.

Part of that is because I painted it, but its also because I have seen it in person and perhaps the qualities you believe it lacks just don't come out in the digital photo.

To me there just isn't enough contrast...which makes the whole thing look quite flat. Also the main areas of interest become lost because they are too light and not well defined enough. Right now, my eye goes immediately to the bottom right side of the painting, where it is very dark, but there isn't even much detail there, and there's nothing to draw my eye up from that dark area to the rest of the painting.

So to be completely honest, my eye sees dark area, struggles and searches frantically to find something cool to focus on in that dark area or something to draw my eye elsewhere, can't find anything...loses interest before even looking at the rest of the painting. Make sense? Your composition is actually quite nice and has the potential to draw your eye around the painting, however the way you colored it completely destroys this potential. Sorry if my critique seems harsh.

Its not that I don't appreciate your criticism, or that I think you are over critical; its just that I completely disagree with you.

I certainly have no issue with an opposing view.
However I will emphasize again my issue , if you will, on what the painting is lacking. something that I feel Nina has captured perfectly.

Originally Posted by Nina

So to be completely honest, my eye sees dark area, struggles and searches frantically to find something cool to focus on in that dark area or something to draw my eye elsewhere, can't find anything...loses interest before even looking at the rest of the painting. Make sense?

Makes sense? That is what a viewer's eye will try to do. If it struggles, it's over.
Because you have asked, I feel that you think that it in unfinished. What is your gut feeling?