Monday, September 12, 2016
Saturday, September 10, 2016
However, there's more to it than that. Note that dirt pile from which the foreground plant grows isn't very detailed, despite being in the foreground. There is some vague lighting, shading, and texture, but that's it. That's because I don't want the dirt to draw the eye; I want the plant to be the focus. With it being rendered (detailed) and it's lines being sharp, the viewer's eye immediately going to the plant, and the rest is absorbed peripherally.
That's still not all, though. While this image is fine, as far as it goes, there are still more ways to add a greater sense of depth without detracting from the central focus of the foreground plant. To do this,
I added a level of detail between the blurry, half-suggested shapes of the background and the sharp, distinct plant in the foreground. In this mid-ground, I have outlined specific bits of plants--leave, stems, etc.--and highlighted them, but still kept their forms somewhat vague. This brings the background foliage closer to the foreground plant, whereas--in the first image--the viewer interprets a gap between where the background foliage leaves off and where the foreground plant is growing.
Now it feels as if the plants in the background are closer to the foreground plant, although still now right up on it. Adding in too much in this middle ground stage can weaken the focus on the foreground plant, especially if I had added larger plants too close to the one I wish to focus on. Remember that, as things move toward the viewer, they become larger as well. Any grass in the background is too small to distinguish and so just becomes a blur of green texture, but in the middle ground plants that are probably a similar size to the one in the foreground are portrayed as only a fraction of the size. Our brains recognize this as meaning that these plants are farther away, and so having these comparative sized plants in an image helps to deepen the sense of depth within the painting.
The human eye (and brain) does not give equal detail to everything we see. If it did, we would have a hard time focusing in on any one object. When we do focus in on one thing, everything around it is given less detail. So, despite their placement in this image, the far foreground plants would not be sharp were the viewer to focus on our central foreground plant, and so the painting should mimic that. And, when it does, the focus on the foreground plant, and the depth of the image, is reinforced.
Additionally, there are some other interesting bits here for us to review. It is another general rule that, as things move away from the viewer, the become lighter. So, close objects in the foreground are painted with the darkest "values". Now, to understand values it's easiest to switch to greyscale. The darker the value of grey, the closer it is to black. Images are typically split into three "value" categories--background, midground, and foreground--with the background being the lightest and the foreground the darkest. However, this isn't always the case, and night scenes, scenes in enclosed spaces, etc. sometimes reverse this order, putting the lightest values in the foreground, and the darkest to the back. Either way, this separation of values helps the painter create the illusion of depth.
So, let's look at this painting in greyscale to see what we have. This is an area I struggle with. I paint in color (because I love color) and often forget to consider how this will translate to value and whether or not there will be a separation of value. But, as I explained, that separation is very important to the creation of depth within the image.
And, that's certainly true here. While we can still tell the foreground plant from the background, the values are still very similar. Can separating those values improve the image? Well, this is a study, and the point of it is to try new things, so... Let's find out!
[For my fellow Photoshop Geeks, here's a run down of what I did to tweak the values on an image that was already partially painted.
- First, I made the image greyscale--without changing the actual image--by creating an adjustment hue/saturation/lightness layer and set the saturation to -100.
- Second, because I did not want my changes to affect the foreground or far foreground plants, I masked them out of the adjustment layer.
- Third, because I don't want the adjustment to affect the light source (which should be the brightest/lightest part of the image), I masked out the moon and some of the highlights on the trees.
- Fourth, I played with the saturation and lightness values (but didn't touch the hue!) until I got a result that I liked. Because I was focusing on the separation of values, I started by lowering the lightness and eventually settled on -75. I also wanted to separate the image by saturation, so I set the saturation to -50.
- All the while, I continually turned the adjustment layer off, so that I could see how this affected the color image.]
This separation of values does, indeed, pull the plant forward, at least in the greyscale. The plant is even more the focus of the image and the sense of depth is deepened... Except, it seem that we've also lost the suggestions of shape in the background. We can no longer make out the brushstrokes that might have been tree trunks and the foliage-like shapes that added texture to the image. Now, that might not be the same once we switch back to color, because greyscale is a reflection of value and color separations may still provide some texture. To find out, we have to switch back to our image in color.
It's best to focus on adding back in a few larger elements, and to do so with broad strokes, so that we don't start over rendering the background, which would also make us lose focus on the foreground plant that we're trying to keep as the center of the viewer's attention.
I decided that adding back in some of the tree trunks would do the most good, since these are easily recognizable shapes, and since, without them, the tree tops look much more like clouds than tree tops! To combat that, I'm also going to add more green into the trees and further separate them from the sky, because this is a color change only, it won't affect the values of the image overall.
I didn't make any changes to it, and so the background is much deeper and richer, but the foreground still has the same range as it always did. In order to finish the image, we need to widen the range of values on the plant, i.e. intensify the highlights and shadows so that the plant can hold it's own again the rich background we've created. Doing that will return the focus back to the plant, and make it not only stand out, but worthy of the focus we've created for it.
Additionally, the moon (which also hasn't changed) need a little work to fit in to the new background as well. Making those changes gives us...
Friday, September 9, 2016
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
I wanted this image to encompass all of the things I think of when I think of dragonflies: the water, with it's expanding ripples, and the plants and air that later become their home, their distinct wing shape, the colors and the translucence of their wings.
Symmetricals: A Grown-Up Coloring Book. My preview for this design (to the right) didn't show off the dragonflies to full effect, unfortunately, but then it was only supposed to be a hint at what was to come, right?
check out the print version for sale over at Fine Arts America! They've got everything from canvas prints to metal ones, plus tote bags, phone covers, towels and tones of other things.
That's really, in my experience, how an artist eventually develops their own style. While some elements of a given artist's style may be inherent to them (specific to the way they move, etc.) most come from study and practice, the build up of one learned technique or preference overlaying another and another and another until it creates something distinct. The process can be conscious or unconscious--although I feel unconscious takes longer and that focused studies are really the way to go if you want to develop quickly.
And, in that vein, I'm working with various styles, using line art and not using line art, integrating the line art this way or that, creating different textures, different palettes, different levels of detail and types of composition. So, I'd love to know what you think!
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Now that I've finished with Symmetricals, I can start doing my daily illustrations again! *bounces* They're so much fun, and they let me practice different aspects of my work. Today's illustration is a quick bit of fun. A morning view of Teddy, with his friend Thomas the Very Tired Turtle. Don't worry, neither kids nor turtles were given coffee for the making of this image! *G* I wanted to give a bit of a view on how it all works, so I'm including my original sketch, then the finished line art, and then the colored image! I'd love to hear what you think!