[Archived Class 1] Week Two - Atmospheric Perspective

[Form]

Week Two Focus: Atmospheric Perspective

Recapping Week One:
Hello again! Congratulations to those of you who managed to get everything in on time last week. This week please pay attention to the due date and get started on your work early! Those of you who didnt manage to get your stuff in have recieved an F on the week 1 mark sheet. There are a handful of people who have asked to join the class, and if the same people cant manage again this week, I will be swapping out and letting a reserve lister come in. As the topics get less 'fundemental' and more abstract (colour, composition, idea development), we will need to be in full swing discussion, throwing ideas and concepts around. Just reading the task and uploading an image at the end of the week is NOT participation. I don't have all the time in the world, so please help out by critting each other as well.
Remember, you will each be recieving a document with feedback and gradings at the end of the course - this will heavily reflect your participation. There will also be other incentives for those who are regularly participating and helping the others out.

Week Two:

This week we are focusing on atmospheric perspective (also called arial perspective when painting an outdoor scene).

Painting in a representational manner, whether it be studying from life/reference or creating concepts from our mind, is about creating an ILLUSION. Our task is to manipulate our materials of varying limitations to create an illusion of what we see in our eyes or imagination. We are turning a flat page into a space with breadth and depth, as if we were looking through a window. Atmospheric perspective deals with the methods we use to enhance this illusion, (and sometimes exaggerate it) to create depth through our image and create an impression of space.

The study task this week will comprise of one activity.

Study Task: Ref Studies - 2 hours
In task A) we will start with observation. I want you to choose two photoreferences from the page I have supplied, and do colour studies of them. These studies do not have to be detailed - you can reduce trees and rocks and other details to a few strokes. What you are studying is the atmospheric perspective. This starts with some observation, and asking the question: what happens to colour as it recedes in space? Check for yourself in photoshop, run your colour picker across. Ask me questions. Discuss it with each other. Find more photoref if you want to. Look at different causes of atmospheric perspective - is it physical fog? Or just distance haze? In a day or two we will start resolving this into a list of rules about atmospheric perspective which you can then use to help with your production piece. I will post more advice and material as we go along. The task is to choose two of the photorefs, observe and then do a study copy of it. NO COLOUR PICKING IS ALLOWED. Try to capture the atmospheric effects, and make the space feel 'deep'. Dont worry about detail! The rest of your study time needs to be spent analysing what makes atmospheric perspective work, and discussing that here in the thread. This discussion will be a Fail, Pass, High Pass, or Pro on the marking sheet.

Ref Sheet:
227190
227191



Week Two Portfolio Artwork: Focus on Atmospheric Perspective. ‘The Path’
This week we are producing a panorama. The goal is to demonstrate your knowledge of atmospheric perspective (and linear perspective too, if you can>:D ) to create an environment with the illusion of depth. Here is the task:

I would like you to paint a panoramic long shot of a landscape with a path in it. The image can be shot from on or above the path looking over the landscape, but the visible distance should be at least 5-10 miles. You are looking out over a vast area. The path leads to a large object in the distance (asteroid? castle? floating mountain? - make sure it makes sense at that distance). This object needs to be readable, but still be affected by the atmospheric perspective, and also make sure your foreground images 'pop forward' enough - its up to you to figure out how this is achieved!

Posting Your Results

We will be keeping everything consolidated in one thread this week, so feel free to post work in progress shots, ask questions, throw feedback around etc. Dont worry if you are faster or slower than someone else in posting - we all have different schedules. Critique will be given to anything that is posted. I will also be running through all the production tasks myself and will post up my results alongside as we go through each topic. Furthermore, I will try to dig up good references and further reading to go along with it all.

This week I am adding a new mark - high pass.The Fail/Pass/High Pass/Professional gradings will be given out at week's end. A pass is awarded if all tasks are attempted, and a High Pass if they are attempted succesfully. Pro is for work that is at a professional level, above par. Please have ALL of your study work and your portfolio piece submitted 7 days from the time this was posted!

Deadline:
GMT + 10 (my time) = 5PM SUNDAY
GMT - 8 (pacific time) = 11PM SATURDAY

Lets have more discussion and wip posting this week, I will try to keep you guys stocked up with ref, inspiration and advice.

Now git to it!

[D.Labruyere]

ok, just to make sure, this is what we got to do, or is this done a bit TO easy?

[chaosrocks]

holy s***T
ya'll better appreciate this!
crx

[Gundersen]

ok, just to make sure, this is what we got to do, or is this done a bit TO easy?

The colours of the image you have chosen doesnt seem to get blurry as your painting is getting. :) It is stuff like that you want to look for...

Well I gave it a try aswell... two quick wips ... gonna work more on it later/tomorow .. The second one turned out better. Tried to focus on not useing blurred colours, rather change the tone from the strongest more towards pure white as i moves inward in the picture, At least that gave me the effect of what it shows on my speedpaints atm

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/WIP2.jpg

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/WIP1.jpg

[Windmaker]

D.Labruyere: That's a nice start! I'd push it a bit further though. Also, the darkest green strip in your picture makes it look as though the ground is rising while in the reference picture the ground is getting lower. The dark tone breaks up the illusion of depth you would've otherwise achieved.
I'm think you could solve the problem by increasing the sharpness of the rocks. In the reference picture even the furthest rock in the foreground has crisper edges than the trees in the midground and background. Also, you may try adding a rock exactly where the foreground and the midground meet so that the contrast becomes immediatly obvious.

I hope some of this helps and is to some degree correct.

Here is my first study and a step-by-step of the process.
227258
227259

[Gundersen]

Nice one Windmaker. Looks good

[Agustin Poratti]

looking sweet, chaos!

[S!R]

I know these are bad but Im so new, I work real realll slow so cut it off somewhere near the suggested time...Def think the green one (second attempt) is much closer but still a LOT to learn..

Cheers, all.
S!R

[Form]

uh... guys... i don't think you are on the class roster?

the reason for the class limit is so I don't fry my own brain trying to manage more people than I can handle as far as pushing certain tasks and critiquing. Its also so we can keep it in one thread without it exploding. Im going to create a thread for lurkers to follow along, but I won't be looking at it. The ten guys in the class can feel free to look at it and help out too, but if anyone can post in here I will go completely insane.... cheers
f

[S!R]

Oh, sorry. Didnt realize it was closed. No worries, totally understandable..

Cheers
S!R

[Windmaker]

Gundersen: The studies look really nice! Hope to see them finished soon:)

Here's my second study and a process pic. I think maybe it's easier to give critiques and advice if you have an idea of the process. So there.

227609
227610

[Gundersen]

I like the way you show the proces Windmaker, and i think you are getting pretty close to what he wants. I was thinking a bit in my sleep tonight about it.
And what do you guys prefere when painting like this, Would you prefere to start with the colour farthest away, or do start on the closest colours first?

Logicly we probably should start with the objects farthest away from us when building up a painting, but it feels more correctly to get the strong colours first then adjusting them as you go inwards in the picture.


ANY thoughts on this? (we need to discuss aswell as paint)

[Windmaker]

Hey:)
I think it's best to start with a gradient. The main sky colour is on top of the picture (whre you would normally find the sky) and the main foreground colour is at the bottom. Then you blend them to extent you wish and meet them where the horizon is.
I would try to paint at both ends of the picture simultaneously. That way you don't focus on just one part of it and avoid the danger of overrendering early in the process.
Also, one thing I found really helpful is to work really small. Either that or really zoom out. I worked both of my studies at about the size of the reference picture. Which was at about 16% zoom in my case.

[rvdtor]

windmaker i like yours...they're very vague but the impression of the overall depth and idea is definately there...good work.
here are mine done very fast just to get the feel of colors and stuff. getting the colors right was harder than i though but they came out ok i guess. i started recording the steps but i got carried away and didnt want to break my concentration so just have the end result.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1457/step1ha6.jpg
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7962/step2jh3.jpg
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1393/backy2kb4.jpg

[Gundersen]

rvdtor Those ones are realy nice! Love the way they are simple but still show the details it needs to do. And i think you captured the essence of the picture very good.

Can you tell a bit more about your proces then? Like what is the difference in the two pictures. and how you worked them up, doesnt need to be shown in images, can rather be explained aswell :)

For me it seems like the first picture has been focused on the rock, so the stuff that gets further away get washed away because of the atmospheric effect, While the second one seems to be more fog then atmospheric perspectiv. Those images was pretty good on that example. Yes the flower has the full focus of the "camera", but if it would be a non foggy forest i think the image would look diffrent, It would not have the blurry effect that the photo has there atm. (Am a Photographer so know some about this :) )

What do you guys think of that?

[Windmaker]

rvdtor: They came out great! The one with the flower particularly. Good work!

Gundersen: I agree about the forest. It would look different if there was no fog. The trees don't seem to be as far as needed to get atmospheric effects showing. That's why people usually atmospheric perspective to show the size of things - it only shows when something's huge. On the other hand, I think what we're seeing with the flower is more of a depth of field issue (if that's what it's called). It happens when the surroundings of the subject are out of focus. It can be observed in macro photography.
Sooo... they look similar (the atmospheric effects and depth of field), but they're different.

Also, here's a third study I did. I decided to try and compensate my lack of experience with lots of studies. I gathered up reference material for my production piece and plan on doing studies of each of the pictures before going to work on the piece itself.

Here goes:
227645
227646

[Gundersen]

Looks great Windmaker, the one dark green strip looks a bit to dark thats the only comment :)

Ill post some work later , am at uni atm so no drawingboard here

Taken from Wikipedia:

Aerial perspective or atmospheric perspective is the effect on the appearance of an object by the atmosphere between it and a viewer (or the technique of depicting this effect in a work of art, such as a landscape painting). As the distance between an object and a viewer increases, the contrast between the object and its background decreases. The contrast of any markings or details on the object also decreases. The colours of the object also become less saturated and shift towards blue.

[Windmaker]

Gundersen: Thanks:)

Here's one more.

227676
227677

[DanJohnCox]

Windmaker, good on ya to do lots of studies. but while lots are great sometimes one is just as good. esspecially when youre starting out, you may just be making lots of inaccurate drawings, rushing through and not taking the time to really take in what youre seeing, just shorthanding your experiences.

from a colour standpoint, you need to pull away from what you think the object's colour is. and look at the object itself, with no preconcieved notions of its colour. your trees in your second study for example. in that image, there is actually very little green at all! regardless of the fact that there are trees there and that trees are green. its mostly reds, yellows, and blues, with just a few touches of green on the transitions between light and shadow.

next time you do an image, take a stab at the colours yourself. put them down in blocks, dont even worry about the image itself just the main colours you see. judge whether the trees are green, or orange.
then take the colour picker across all those areas and studying what colour they really are and youll often be very suprised. (i took one image sometime back and did this. it was a sunset beach, i thought i saw blue, purple, green and red and yellow. but found the entire image was only red and yellow, nothing else at all.)
the colour picker isnt a crutch, so dont use it as one. just use it to reveal to you the true nature of what you think youre seeing..... if that last line makes any sense :S

btw, id suggest taking more then double the time on the next image. that way you can really take in the information you're seeing. or more over, dont time yourself at all. just know you should spend more time then you have and do it till you feel youve really understood the scene.

danmilligan gave me a great pointer on making a scene using the Three C's: Contrast, Clarity, Colour think of those while you study atmospheric perspective.

[Windmaker]

blinkythemouse: Thanks:) Colour isn't my strongpoint sooo yeah... I see what you mean. Now that you've mentioned it it seems obvious enough, so I'll try to keep that in mind. If you see any other problems with the studies I'll be glad if you point them out.

[DanJohnCox]

no problem wind! will do!

oh and gunderson, the trees in your first image. make sure youre drawing whats there, and not whats in your imagination. same as my suggestions to windmakers colours. what you ended up drawing was the equivalent of pine trees. try and make sure you follow those big shapes in the trees themselves. in fact, ignore what the object itself it and pretty much anything you think you know about it. your preconceived notions actually getting in the way at the moment. with these studies, draw PURELY what you see, nothing else.

this is a tricky concept, so dont feel bad if youre not getting right away.

and since im at it. rvd, those look simply great! but since i dont like pure praise, ill give a crit altho its minor stuff. the background in the first image could use some distancing in terms of its brightness. it doesnt feel quite as far as the source image. lightening the bottom section of it and adding more blue should fix that. and also adding more value range to the forground, ground in the second image. more detail can be useful in just the foreground to give that sense of space. mind you im just talking about the ground, the flower looks fine.

[Gundersen]

I think the idea of this concept is rather to learn how to use colour to make an atmospheric perspective, not only copy an image. As Form stated in the begining it didnt mather if it looked the same, more that we learned the rules of atmospheric perspective.
So i dont think its about drawing purely what you see, its about understanding the concept of perspective!

But thanks for critt :)

no problem wind! will do!

oh and gunderson, the trees in your first image. make sure youre drawing whats there, and not whats in your imagination. same as my suggestions to windmakers colours. what you ended up drawing was the equivalent of pine trees. try and make sure you follow those big shapes in the trees themselves. in fact, ignore what the object itself it and pretty much anything you think you know about it. your preconceived notions actually getting in the way at the moment. with these studies, draw PURELY what you see, nothing else.

this is a tricky concept, so dont feel bad if youre not getting right away.

and since im at it. rvd, those look simply great! but since i dont like pure praise, ill give a crit altho its minor stuff. the background in the first image could use some distancing in terms of its brightness. it doesnt feel quite as far as the source image. lightening the bottom section of it and adding more blue should fix that. and also adding more value range to the forground, ground in the second image. more detail can be useful in just the foreground to give that sense of space. mind you im just talking about the ground, the flower looks fine.

[Agustin Poratti]

Ok, here we go with the colour studies.

In both studies I observed how in the distance, colours would catch or mix up a lot more with the "atmosphere/sky" colour.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3316/study1lu3.jpg

In study 1, I noticed colours in the distant mountain would become grayish, or desaturated. The shadows seemed to catch up a lot more sky/atmospheric blue compared to the shadows of the trees in the middle. Grass was a bitch to paint.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9670/study2ni2.jpg

In study 2, I saw how in foregroudn, completely in shadow, everything bent towards that blueish tone, coming from the sky. I think palette comes into play, because all colours start to lose their "local" identity to become part of this... bleuish palette, and in their surroundings, colours make sense, but if you take them outside, it's rather confusing. Welcome to palette!. At mid-distance we had this beam of sunlight wich caused lit parts to come towards orange and shadows remained blueish, but somewhat desaturated because of the distance, thus creating that beautiful sense of depth... me guess. The white of some of the buildings was slightly yellowgreen bone white in light and some lilac in mids/shadow.
In the background, mountains cut against the bright white sky in some desaturated blue-gray tone, cause of distance and atmosphere's doing.

to complicate things more, in study 2 i tried to record my process, in case someone benefits. i was very paranoid about the blinking corners indicating active recording.

-MrCzGykWt0

about the video, do notice:
-i'm not sure if that's a good way to start a study like this. my first studies of this kind.
-how at some given point, i throw a nice chunk of transparent blue in those shadows.
-i color pick a lot in MY OWN PAINTING, and always try to build up my palette
-at the end i flip canvas to refresh my sight, and decide to apply a quick "overlay" layer using some transparent pink/orange to create that sun beam effect
-after i stop the recording. i add two more brushstrokes to the street. i also notice the sky is a bit too pink.
-real time: 25 minutes.

btw, NICE studies all around, will comment on you guys later! this whole thing has taken up a lot of time to get posted up- gotta run!

[Gundersen]

Agustin nice video and nice post! Like you ideas and understand what you say, I seem to have some painting problems today, all turns out to SHIT, but the movie was inspireing so i will give it another try :)

[Gundersen]

Tried to force out some paintings, not the highest quality, sorry for that.

But as i painted i seem to nice several differences,
- sometimes there is a clear "blue" difference as you go deeper, The natural effect of Atmospheric perspectice. The Atmosphere ...
- There might only be "foggy" effect, aka that the colours get more greyish And nothing blueish ...
- The colours sometimes get darker in the background then the foreground..(this is strange)
- The foreground is most often the most detailed part, except some images where the foreground is all black and the 2nd foreground is the most detailed part.

For me there seems to be big variations in colour and how we see it when it comes to large Environment images. Both of the images are realy sketchy, but i guess it doesnt mather to much :)

Many people here have good points about the effect that can be noticed.

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Fjell1.jpg
http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Fjell2.jpg

And a new one

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/By1.jpg

[D.Labruyere]

Nice work Gundersen, watch your colors though. Things are often far less bright then you would expect. Besides that I think you should look at the sharpness of the edges in the photos. All things are almost just as sharp in the later 3 of your pictures. Edges in the distance often get less sharp, untill the point you can't see where the first thing end and the other thing start.

ok.. second try, with step by step :er:

[Agustin Poratti]

ummmmm... i've been reading the thread and i think everyone's got interesting critiques, and i agree with most of what was said, so it'd be repeating the same... let's wait for Form's input, i guess

the picture with the flower, yeah, i think that's fog.

BTW! i wanted to bring this up in work 1, but couldn't, so here it is, what i was taught some time ago to deal with simple curves and the like in perspective:

d_HDtyzBZlk

[D.Labruyere]

Hey, never thought about using it in that way augustin. that's great!


ps. these things are fun so here is another one :}

[rvdtor]

thanks for the comments guys

gundersen i agree with what u said about the excercise being about undertanding colors to show perspective and not to copy the image exactly.

windmaker i like how kinda abstract your paintings look they give an overall impression of the image...could u perhaps post the original pictures that you used to reference the other ones from?

blinkythemouse yea they were kinda fast and the way i drew them was i drew the foreground picture first since it was the sharpest like the flower and the rock face then added the background after...tho i noticed in the flower picture the ground is almost as sharp as the flower. tho the fog made me kinda blur everything in the background.

Augustinevery very nice video and ur explanation of the color changes with atomsphere are very true. though i must say i like your process better. how u start with everything on like one layer and u outlines your shapes, blot out colors then bring out the details for the nearer parts. i do my outlines first but then focus only on the sharp objects that are closer, then on another layer do the backgrounds. these are the ones i neglect the most as you can see on the rocks as was said.

d.labruyere really good not too much focus on details and to me you nailed the colors. how long did u spend on it?

im gonna work on some more today and post them up when i get time cause i have class in about an hour.

[Gundersen]

Great work guys! Again a good movie :)

D.Labruyere Thanks for crit, yeah i can see in some pictures the colour tends to get brighter then they should be. Need to learn more on how to work up an image from bottom til top. But i am getting there at least :)

But lets do a kind of discussion thing guys, can everyone list 5 rules of Atmospheric perspective?

- The farther away the "bluer" it gets
- Foreground has the brightest colours and the darkes colours?
- The colours get less saturated the farther into the picture you go
-
-
....

[Windmaker]

OK. Here's what I've learned about atmospheric perspective.
- The closer to the horizon the objects get, the more their colour becomes closer to that of the sky (which is not always blue)
- The closer to the horizon the object is, the less contrast it has (thus the brightest and darkest colours in the foreground which Gundersen mentioned).
- The farther from the viewer the object is, the softer its edges get. This combined with the merging of the colours towards the sky colour accounts for the less contrast in the distance.
Erm... I can't think of a number four and five. I guess I've learned three things only:)

Nice studies everyone:) Great even:)

Agustin: Thanks for the vids. They're really helpful!

D.Labruyere: Doing these studies really is fun, isnt't it?:) Good job on both of yours!

rvdtor: Here they are. The pictures I mean. I'm pleased with how the second one came out, but the first one isn't really good... Too bad I couldn't see that yesterday. Oh well... :)

228496 228495

Gundersen: About the colours getting darker in the background thing - I think that's most often because of shadows. Or just because things in the background are darker coloured. If you look at the images Form has provided, you'll see that the darker background is because of those two reasons.

[D.Labruyere]

- The farther from the viewer the object is, the softer its edges get. This combined with the merging of the colours towards the sky colour accounts for the less contrast in the distance.

I would like to add something to that and that is: the farther away from the point the viewer is focusing on the softer the edges.

rvdtor: I'm really slow, took around 30-40 minutes to knock one out. Never realised how hard it is to pick the right color. I had a huge problem with getting the right yellow/orange and I wasted a lot of time figuring out the colors of the shadows.

[Gundersen]

D.Labruyere I read something interesting regarding shadows in the latest issue of ImagineFX . They talked about colour theori and how to make shadows. Many people tend to use a black overlay as shadow, and that makes it a bit blurry very often.

What they talked about was that by useing the oposite colour in the "colour wheel", noticeably a very dark version of the oposite colour you get a more correctly shadow. I havent tested this yet, but it sounds interesting and strange at the same time.

http://realcolorwheel.com/colorwheel.htg/Real_Color_Wheel_475.jpg

Form you got any input on this?

[D.Labruyere]

that is actually correct Gundersen. Because in reality, when you look at an object you see all the colors, BUT the color of the object.

If we take for example a purely yellow object, and we would shine pure white light on it. It will "swallow" all the other colors, and reject the yellow beams which are sended towards the object. The yellow color will be send to our eyes, and that is what we will see.

When an object is in the shadow, we will see less of the yellow color, since less light, thus less yellow will fall on it, and see more of it's complementary purple.

and if I'm correct the complementair is always the color which comes out mixed by red, yellow and blue,

so:
red = green (blue and yellow)
yellow = purple (blue and red)
blue = orange (red and yellow)

Atleast I thought, that was how it sort off worked :s

[Agustin Poratti]

blue is not the complementar of red, and so on...

what Labruyere said is right,

red - green
yellow - purple
blue - orange

that wheel is a Real Colour Wheel, something a guy made in wich the color darkens more like it does in reality like when you use tubes with pigment, and not like it happens in PS.... color pick a column of that wheel inside PS to see what i mean.

[Agustin Poratti]

try to avoid deleting posts so the discussion makes sense later on...

[Gundersen]

I deleted it 2 seconds after i posted it ... didnt think anyone would be that quick :) Or maybe you refere to someone else that have deleted something...

Ill write down what gary Tonge says about Atmospheric perspective when it comes to "Getting Composition Right":

Atmospheric depth and occlusion are very important ingredients in solidifying the composition of a piece, be it large vista where the sheer amount of air between the viewer and horizon transform colouring and tonal contrast in the distance, or a smaller area, where light passes through fine particles in the air to create soft diffusion and subtle changes in colouring. Photonic bounce also adds to the relative atmosphere generating diffuse light, which shoots out from lit subjects bathing the surroundings with soft reflected light.

[DanJohnCox]

heres my first and second attempt

what i noticed while doing this:
as the object moves futher back it takes on the colour of the sky more and more and can actually become part of the sky.
objects closer have more noticeable value/hue range then further away
objects blur into the distance and plane changes become less noticeable

those are the main things i can think of and put into words when i did this. they seem pretty obvious i guess but i figured i should say them anyways :P

[Form]

Post #2 D. Labruyere:

Like that, but push it a bit further. Your observations are getting there... but arent quite right yet. You need to include enough 'detail' to show the complex changes that happen in the receding space. Also watch your 'shapes' - reference your picture as often as you are painting yours if not more. Make sure you check shapes against other shapes again and again. Your different 'strips' of land are all too tall - they are thinner :)

[Form]

Post #4 Gundersen:

Good first shot. You need to cool your colour down - push it to blue a bit in the background. You seem to have used one colour in different values? You need to pay attention to how the hue shifts - thats a big part of atmospheric perspective. As with Labruyere, you need to carefully check your shapes as your strips are too tall also.

Watch the shapes and values in front too. Your bottom end (darks) seems to be clipped in the foreground... where are those WARM almost blacks amongst the foliage? What about different levels of detail in space? Finally, you seem to have broken the foreground up into shapes of trees that arent really there :P Save the 'concept' art for your prod piece :P

Number two, pretty much same things applying. Your darks are clipped/missing, your range of hues is a bit monochrome, and you arent showing the different effects atmosphere has (contrast/temp shift/shape shift etc). And really watch your 'drawing' - your shape in the mid ground is very different to the ref!

[Form]

Post #5 Windmaker:

Great first study. A few drawing niggles here and there - shapes, edges, values, but you got the atmosphere bang on. High 5s.

[Form]

Post #11 Windmaker:

Again, you have captured the essence of the atmosphere here. As far as the contrast goes at least - and great work observing the effect of atmosphere (sky reflection) in the shadows! Some of your temp. changes, even though you have identified them, possibly arent strong enough?

As an experiment, focus your eyes on the edge between the ref and your painting, but observe with your peripheral vision the patch of forest in the left mid ground. You will notice yours is a lot lighter and more tinted to green...

All up though, you have a good way of keeping it loose but suggesting what needs to be suggested to get the atmosphere.

[Form]

Post #12 Gundersen:

I generally start by filling the whole canvas with a gradient or solid fill of the sky colour, and then block in whatever jumps out. The trick to doing studies is when you are 'thinking' about it you need to know that the horizon is 20 miles away, that the big white shapes are buildings, etc etc. But when you are 'looking' and painting from that, you need to forget what the 'objects are' and just see shapes of different colours. Thats all a painting is after all, shapes of colour on a flat surface. So there should be no distinction between painting the far or near areas first - they are all just shapes of colour with equal importance. It is akin to painting a battle scene and painting one character first because he is the one to strike the first blow in the battle you know? I think its just an individual prioritisation.

[Form]

post #14 rvdtor:

your first one is nice... did you double post the ref instead of your final? In either case your more final of the two paintings shows good skills observing shapes and colours. WHat stands out most is the harsh cool white you have highlighted on the rocks with. It really stands out more than it should - but thats a value niggle not an atmospheric perspective topic :) GW!

The flower painting is great - i think you really captured the essence there. Perhaps your forest floor has too sharp a 'jump' in detail level half way along so it looks slightly more like stage layers than the ref does. only other niggle is that the trees to the left and right of the twins in the middle are a bit too dark... you lose the nice composition of those two trees that the photographer achieved (slightly). Nice work though!

[Form]

post #15: gundersen:

as you said, without the fog, the picture would look different. But in actuality, its fog that causes ALL atmospheric perspective. Atmospheric perspective is caused by the effect of the ATMOSPHERE (ie particles) between the viewer and the object. To really dumb it down, we could say the AMOUNT of these particles between the viewer and the object. So the case in that photo is that the dense fog means there is a similar amount of particles between us and the background as there is over a longer distance on a clearer day. Make sense?

[Form]

post #16 rvdtor:

re: your comment to gunderson. Atm. persp. doesnt only happen when things are massive! see above :) your comments about the blur are correct though.

your study: watch out for temperature changes - warm greens in the light, cooler and blue shifted in the shadows. also note the detal around the edges of the path in the fg - those little bumps and grooves will help you achieve good atmos persp if you put them in. Mainly just watch the temp change. Cheers for showing process!

[Form]

post #17 Gundersen:

the only thing wrong with that definition is The colours of the object also become less saturated and shift towards blue.
That doesnt always apply. Only under normal daytime blue sky conditions. How about at sunset when the sky is red?

[Form]

post #18 windmaker:

looking good! I really like your confident brushwork and colour choices in this one!

[Form]

post #19 blinkythemouse:

lets hear some more info on the 3 c's if you still have it?

[Form]

post #22: gundersen:

yep, but part of that is paying attention to edges and drawing - so be careful!

[Form]

post #23 Agustin Poratti:

OK! nice... your first study is good. BG and sky a tiny bit too dark... some plane changes missing,... but good. Watch the saturation on the grass at the end of the road. And also the shift in values between the uproght trees and the shorter, bulkier shrubs (in the main vegetation area).

The second study is great. Again, too dark in the far BG. Nice colour choices in the midground.Ur vid is down for me?

[Form]

post #25: gundersen:

good update on your first study of the chinese yellow mountains. I see you have fixed the contrast issue, and added some detail. GJ. But still value is too dark, and not enough blue in the far BG.

In the second study, look at the ref. The background mountains almost look like they have a faint blue GRADIENT laid over them. See how it fades to blue as it goes to the left? That gradual hue shift is what you want to use to achieve the at. persp. Also, keep pushing your OBSERVATION of shapes and colours in the foreground. The value jump from FG to MG on the right side is too steep/jumpy. And note where the path leaves the bottom of the page in the ref?

the final study looks too rushed for me... maybe spend some more time on it? Your drawing is off in a big way (look at the shapes of the distant mountain ranges?) and the values and shapes in the FG are off too (look at the castle wall - flick your eyes from the ref to the painting to notice what is most off). You are clearly getting the hang of the fading values/colours though.

[Form]

post #26: D. Labruyere:

nice! thanks for posting process.. but i think they are out of order or something... no idea what order they go in? anyway assming the one to the right of the ref is the final... you need to watch values (compare the value of the tree line in the midground) and the clarity and shape...of your shapes :). The colour isnt perfect (missing warms in the mid ground grass, and not enough blue vibrancy in the bg) but its achieving the effect. This could be quite a nice study - maybe push it a bit more?

[Form]

post #28 D. Labruyere:

Seems like you are rushing these... drawing is way off (where did all the nice peoples' houses go? :P) and where did that purple in the bottom left come from? BG is too saturated, hues of the trees are too green (wheres the warmth), top of sky needs more of a blue shift... are you taking enough time on these?

[Form]

post #30 Gundersen:

rule 1: see above - not always blue. why?
rule 2: most contrast. not necessarily brightest colours... sometimes the sky will have a very light value, and the front will be darker... but it will have detail and contrast in its values.
rule 3: this one is more on the money.

[Form]

post #31 Windmaker:

rule 1. what about images where you cant see the sky? Its not the sky then.. but something that reflects the colour of the sky in its particles - the atmosphere!
rule 2. yep.
rule 3. good! edges... edges become soft or lost... and especially when we are painting, we can exaggerate the loss of these edges to heighten the illusion of depth.

[Form]

post #33 Gundersen:

What you are talking about here is colour theory...

In natural sunlight, we see warm light on the object from the direct sunlight, and in the shadows we see cool hues because blue is reflected from teh atmosphere onto the parts of the objetc not lit by direct sunlight. It isnt as simple as going 'opposite on the colour wheel'. Its all relative and depends on the environment as a whole... we will approach this in colour theory later on i think...

an yeah, thats the 'real colour wheel' which is more for subtractive colour (paint) than additive colour (light).

boom :)

[Form]

post #38 blinkythemouse:

good studies - both of them show what we need to see :). Good work also on identifying that plane changes become less noticable. The interaction of planes in the foreground object of a painting serve as one of the easiest ways to direct the eyes to the focus... subordinating those in the background increases the sense of depth.

[Form]

lying prophet, nathan house, jorge gecov, daldbaatar - please join in the discussion soon.

nathanhouse, you didnt complete any of the tasks last week, and you havnt shown up this week - im very close to giving your spot away to #1 on the wait list... get in touch man.

[Form]

a little inspiration, and some more homework:

is this painting from our homeboy Ryan Church a good example of atmospheric perspective? Discuss :D

http://www.ryanchurch.com/images/personal/RCH05_D_big.jpg

Hope its cool to use this image from Mr Church seeing as its in the public domain and all :)

[DanJohnCox]

post #19 blinkythemouse:

lets hear some more info on the 3 c's if you still have it?

for sure, just waiting a bit for people to mull the idea over and think about how that can relate to the studies.

In general this is used for illustration of anything but works quite well right now for us to work on achieving atmospheric perspective

Clarity: whats closest to us should be clearest, and often have the hardest egdes. whats further becomes less clear
Contrast: whats closest has higher contrast then something further away
Colour: use colour to set objects in space, as something gets closer if its more saturated for example, it can give the illusion of being closer

these are not necessarily physical, real world rules. but just methods to help achieve our atmospheric perspective. in terms of regular illustration this applys as well, but liberties can be made, instead of whats close and far, you think of your subject. use clarity, contrast, and colour to draw the eye to your subject and around your scene.

i feel like i butchered the explanation of this great formula but thats the best way i can think to explain it. and obviously dont forget, its just a formula and is meant to be broken when it doesnt suit you image.

[Gundersen]

Thanks for critts Form. I didnt try to rush any of the paintings, used around 30 mins on each of them... back and forth erasing and painting hehe.
Will do some more work on them or other pictures to try to get even better understanding of the atmopsheric effects. Was nice to read through all your comments to all people, learned some from it :)

When it comes to the Church picture it has great aerial and atmospheric perspective. To the right of the picture where the planes are comming out you have a Aerial perspective create by the light that hits particles in the air, probably dust. And it looks like looking in through an old church. While on the left side you have the atmospheric perspective where the building catch the colour of the sky the farther away they are. A great reference example on how to do it :)

No idea if its to early to start on my final piece, but here we go at least, First some quick sketches to try to find out a good approach to the design.
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4899/skisserds1.jpg

Then i decided to go for something similar to the sketch on the top right corner, and came up with this desin:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2641/finaltc9.jpg

any comments or critt guys?

[Windmaker]

Gundersen: That looks pretty nice:) I also like the thumbnail in the bottom right corner, but the one you chose is better for showing linear perspective alongside the atmospheric one. Looking forward to seeing it develop.

Form: Thanks for the crits! You're right about the temperature changes not being strong enough in some places. Too bad I started noticing those things only after they were pointed out to me:)

Erm... would you say this is going in the right direction for a production piece?

229201

I'm trying to finish it early so I have time to redo the production piece from last week.

[Gundersen]

That one looks cool windmaker :) Like the colours in it, realy makes it look cold.
Maybe the "industrial city" (is that what it is?) in the background should be larger and darker at the same time as it has the atmospheric perspective. Atm it feels very small, didnt realy see it. Maybe you need to work on the motion of your picture, so that you force the viewer to first look at the children, then follow the path til the "EVIL city" in the dark background ..

One way to force people to see it a certain way is to frame in the picture with elements, so that the mountains/rocks that are closes to us create a frame from top to bottom, and use perspective to make you look along the ridge into the picture .. kind of what i do in my sketch, useing the "Frameing" from the building on the left side, and the mountain on the right to frame it in to force you to look from the building to the "city"

Just my 5 cents :)

[Agustin Poratti]

yes, i think church's picture could be an example of atmos stuff. to the left, there's this desaturation happening and colours twisting towards sky colour. and to the right theres these sun beams coming through probably lighting particles and creating depth...

i was struck by these, the other day, i think they speak a lot of what we're studing:
(guild wars eye of the north, thread in the finished section)

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=220687&stc=1&d=1192732136
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=220686&stc=1&d=1192732127
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=220685&stc=1&d=1192732108

windmaker looking good so far. i think you should check a bit your colours though, still looks somewhat planar. like mountains in different places having the same or very similar white shade, and the bottom of your picture has nearly the same gray you find in the top... i might be wrong.
icy landscapes aren't easy tho, good for you on picking them up.
also, i think only think, your object is a bit too small.

[Agustin Poratti]

form yes, thanks a lot man. grass is killer to paint for me. and i really couldn't notice i was darkening my backgrounds too much...

[Gundersen]

Nice examples Augustin. didnt realy like the 1st one But the 2nd one realy pulls your eyes and leads you into the main focus of the image. Love the way he/she has used the mountains to do that!

Well they are all good examples of use of Tone and Hue value correctly to get the image you want to. hehe :)

[daldbaatar]

Oh sorry brothers...been kinda busy doing all the school stuff...hehe
Anyways. I've been looking at all your stuff. Some of them are pretty good. The way most of us captures the mood and impression is remarkable.
Here are my stuffs. I realised that most of the colors i thought were right had turned out little different from what i have tried to do. I've been reading all of the things you people wrote about the theories of depth. And i agree with most of them. It's even obvious on the photoreferences that Form had put here. Well im gonna give critiques soon.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1813/wel5oy4.jpg
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/3003/wel4la5.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8770/wel3te1.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1354/wel2vy7.jpg
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/9702/welxh5.jpg
I've done each of them within 30 minutes less...so i didnt try hard to bring out the details and also i tried a lot to bring out the right colors. But this is how most of them turned out. I think i let my knowledge in perspective get in the way..

[daldbaatar]

Well...my opinions. im not much of a critic but..i'll just say it
Windmaker: I like the way u drew it. You seem to change the mood and make it even more better. In the picture with the "path and trees in the mist i" think u did pretty well in blending the atmosphere to the objects. Espeically with the mist color.
Agunstin: I think u really showed the reflection of the sky ( atmospheric ) color into the ground objects nicely. U seem like draw stuff with few and precise strokes quickly.
Gundersen: the thing u have drawn doesnt have much of a shadow and light. i mean the light and shadow are also very crucial in showing depth i think.
D.Lab: I think some of your stuffs didnt show the sharpness of the colors in the objects close. But u still did well in showing the impressions.
Blinkymouse: I like your stuff the best next to rvdtor's. Some colors dont look alike...but as long as it looks right...no problem i think.
rvdtor: well well well. U did it pretty crispy. Good job. Man

Here are some of the things i understood about depth.
I think far the object is, more blueish it looks. But the main light source's color ( example: sky color ) also have significant effect. Also the colors become less contrasted.
But what i really felt was that the shade doesnt get blue, but more likely to be purple.
More closer the object is more saturated the color is. And sharp. + warm
I also realised the humidity in the air can make a significant effect in changing depth. for example mist. In dry lands, far landscapes can be seen so clear and looks more bright in a strong sunlight. But in a place where there humidity is high, far landscape looks more desaturated and in a less contrast.
Do u agree folks?

[DanJohnCox]

But what i really felt was that the shade doesnt get blue, but more likely to be purple.

careful dude! form already covered this but i wanna make sure its seen again. theres no one specific colour that things turn as they go into the distance. it depends on the atmosphere and basically the best measurement for the colour of the atmosphere is looking at the sky. ie, if the sky looks blue, as things recede they will take on the colour blue. if theres a sunset and the sky is pink or purple, it will take on that colour. Form explains it better in his posts tho.

[daldbaatar]

sorry man...I will go over it again carefully.

[Agustin Poratti]

daldbaatar, nice studies. here's my crit: your greens are very saturated in 1 and 3. and your missing some orange glare in 1, see it? also, to the left middle, theres some veeery desaturated blue shades.
2 is cool, but the blue part of the sky is too dark, and the pink part too saturated and maybe too dark. i think buildings should have more clarity also.
4 looks nice to me!, gj. you even exagerated a bit the depth me thinks.
i think 5 is a bit too saturated overall.

[DanJohnCox]

well heres a rough idea sketch for the production image and im finding this to be damn tricky as ive given myself no obvious atmosphere. and as such, ive gotta come up with some answers, what do i fade into? the background? thats where im going at the moment, but i dont know if its working for the piece

-my own crits, i dont think this feels like its 5-10 miles away. need better sense of scale
-not sure if the dramatic angle is working right, the angle of the stairs/bridge in the distance isnt working right
-i need to refine the design of the place itself, right now theres no coherent design to this place which i need to try and keep in mind

but first, how do get a better sense of scale and depth? its not there enough yet

im mostly thinking to myself out loud here but id be more then happy for anyones thoughts on those... thoughts

this is just an hour of exploration with the idea (god i'm slow!)

[Gundersen]

dalbaatar ofc i havent drawn in light and shadow in my line art... that wouldent make much sense :P

And i didnt like the way you wrote that, was not much positive critt in it .. :( hehe

[Gundersen]

Like your work there Blinky, This warm Lava colour contrast good against the more blue light that comes out of the open. Good start of your concept, keep it up! :) But i am not sure if i am correct, but the perspective looks a bit weird :) hehe

BTW WARNING Form wrote this in his first thread: I would like you to paint a panoramic long shot of a landscape with a path in it. No idea if you can paint an Aerial perspective like you have done ... You need to ask Form before you take this idea to far mate :)

or am i wrong? /me hides

well heres a rough idea sketch for the production image and im finding this to be damn tricky as ive given myself no obvious atmosphere. and as such, ive gotta come up with some answers, what do i fade into? the background? thats where im going at the moment, but i dont know if its working for the piece

-my own crits, i dont think this feels like its 5-10 miles away. need better sense of scale
-not sure if the dramatic angle is working right, the angle of the stairs/bridge in the distance isnt working right
-i need to refine the design of the place itself, right now theres no coherent design to this place which i need to try and keep in mind

but first, how do get a better sense of scale and depth? its not there enough yet

im mostly thinking to myself out loud here but id be more then happy for anyones thoughts on those... thoughts

this is just an hour of exploration with the idea (god i'm slow!)

[Gundersen]

haha now i am spamming this thread :)

Have started painting up the image, here is my WIP so far, any comments/critts guys? Open to all kinds of suggestions hehehe :)

The last image just shows where i Intend to have Light source no1 from, aka the sun.

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Step1.jpg

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Step2.jpg

[Agustin Poratti]

form, i could use some help here, this is one of the ideas i had for the production piece. i thought the path could be the river, wich leads into that "bridge city". i'm having a hard time getting the river to show as if it started in forground in a sort of waterfall fashion and then into the land. here's some sort of side and otp vuiew i drew so you get what i mean.
also, give me a thumbs up or down for the atmospheric concerns =)

[D.Labruyere]

form: I will work more on those then :)

in the meanwhile, the start of my production task. I still have to put in the path and thing in the distance, just not 100% sure yet how I'm going to do that.

[Agustin Poratti]

i like that very much, labruyere..

[Windmaker]

Here's a small update on the production piece.
I increased the contrast and added a third character (whose shadow I need to fix). And am thinking of maybe decreasing the scale a bit and putting in a village in the midground.
Would a village classify as an object?

229961

[Form]

windmaker:

great start. Keep at it. Snow is hard because you wont have your super darks or saturateds up front... try to put em somewhere around the tree/kids. Also you have a flat line along the bottom made by the ridge, which makes it feel a bit like a stage... try to break shapes up a bit...

blinky:
hey man, try a new shot. Confusing shapes and confusing sense of space, and it will be confusing (thus) to get your atmos. persp. in there :)

gundersen:

good start. I dont mind the pallette, but having the same hue in the sky as on the ground means that there is one less element (hue) you can use to get your atmos. persp. ALso, dont forget your dark darks up front.

Agustin:

very nice sense of atmosphere and depth. Clarifying the shapes (edge quality) in the foreground will help. Throw some haze off the top of that waterfall... it reads ok to me (i got what it was without reading the description).

d. labruyere: looking good but not sure where the focal point/object is?

guys im really sorry for my lame/short replies tonight. I just found out i have a degenerative eye disease so im trying to really limit the time spent in front of the computer. As i work 8-9 hours a day painting in PS, that leaves minimal time to spend on the forums. I will do my best to stay efficient... cheers.. See you guys tomorrow.
A

[Gundersen]

Agustin Poratti I like your picture, and I guess Form described some of it, BUT he didn’t see this one way, If you wanna show the waterfall more maybe you can form the cliff its falling off slightly different, that the cliff goes from right to left more, that might change the angel of the waterfall and makes it easier to see… don’t know ..

Looks great so far!

D.Labruyere Like your colours in your painting, its very calm and relaxing. and you have a realy nice atmospheric perspective! But as you say yourself, might be hard to get the path in there :) Lovely cloud formations /me is jealous on the clouds. Wanna explain how you paint clouds?

Windmaker Your picture is very nice, love the feeling of peace in the foreground. But you talk about adding the village, That might be to relaxing the image then. If you add a Industrial city in the background it will contrast the front more, and create more life to the picture. Maybe ..

Form thanks for critts, Don’t worry about us, we will manage fine critting each other a bit aswell, but its great if you dropp us quick critts now and then. BE carefull with your eyes, I am concidering getting computer glasses to stop some of the light from the screen ruining my eyes…

Here is an update on my work, Added a sky as Form suggested and some more details, and tried to work with the overall feel of the image.

Would love to get some suggestions or critt guys!

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Step31.jpg

[Agustin Poratti]

form man, please take a deep think about you can or not keep up with this. it's your health man.
i've had some experience with health issues preventig me from working/painting... tendinitis, 2 years and a half. you guys have no idea how awful it feels to be unable to do what you love, and watch months pass by. i still have some sequels, but thanks to God, i'm finally recovering.
also, if there's anything i can do to make life easier for you, let me know.
look beyond. look beyond today and what you do today, when planing. life's long.
thanks for everything man.

[Windmaker]

Form: I'm with Agustin on that one. Your health comes first. Think about it.

[daldbaatar]

Form: Yeah...If u lose your health, u will also lose everything. Just check us out once in a while if not everyday.

[D.Labruyere]

agrees with everybody else, your health comes first. We are just going to have to critic eachother more then. Dont think anybody ever died because of that :)

Gundersen

Sur, I can explain how I do my clouds. Though I must say that it probably isn't the most correct way, and Ill probably do tons of things others know how to do faster and better. Anyways, I still got my progress saved from this one so I will just show that and explain what I've done:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a131/haldor/tutorial_clouds.jpg

Step 1:

I start with the air. I pick my colors on top, and my colors on the bottom, and put some other colors in the middle. Within this painting simply darkest on top, lightest on bottom, and everything in between that.

Then I blend those colors, putting my opacity to 50%, just colorpick a lot on my painting, and slowly lower my opacity and hardness of the brush untill it looks like one whole. Once again, this takes a lot of time and I think there is a far faster way to do it. But I'm noob in photoshop, and use the tools I know :}

Step 2:

I place some white and less white spots, random untill I feel like I've placed enough of them. This is also the part where I start to think of my light source, though for me that isn't a really important factor then. My brush stands around 75% to 100% opacity, though this varies sometimes.

Step 3:

After I'm done with step 2, I'm basicaly going to do the same as with the air. This is actually the part where the real work starts. I start to connect all these random brushstrokes from step 2. So I have to make absolutely sure that I'm happy with my colors in step 2, because else it will be really difficult to fix it later on. My opacity goes down, not my hardness, and my brush will get smaller to.

I decide my main light source, what is going to be the bottom, left side and right side of my clouds. Which part is going to be further away, and which one isn't. Well as you can see the left part is a bit less developed then the right part, but from going to left to right does show you how I start working smaller and smaller.

Step 4:

It's a bit hard to see what I've done here but Ill try to explain. Things still look a bit messy on step 3, because I used a lot of small brushstrokes. This time I go over it with a bigger brush in the color I want it to be. This way I will still have all the small details I have already put in from step 3, though they won't pop out extreme, and make it one big loose mess. After that, I will continue with a smaller brush again, making some spots look sharper, and give the shapes a bit more of a cloudy feeling to it. My transpiracy shifts a lot during this, it usually goes from 25 to 75%

Step 5:

I basicaly continue with what I did on Step 4. I pay a bit more attention to what is in the distance, and make that less detailed, and continue to change and shape the clouds untill it has a shape I'm happy with.

Step 6:
The clouds are basicaly done, I still have to remove some spots, make some white spots a bit lighter and other spots a bit darker, and tighten some things up here.

And that is how I do clouds. Hope this helped you out a bit and if you still have any questions, feel free to ask.

-Daniel

[Gundersen]

D.Labruyere Thanks for realy nice explanation man :) I will deffenatly have a try at that one!

No one seems to wanna give critts to me :( AND there is 6 people online atm :P

Here is an update ..

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Step4.jpg

[Windmaker]

Gundersen: Nice going so far:) The light in the lower left looks pretty nice!
I'd make the mountains a bit more organic. They look like a collection of pyradims now. Try blending their shapes a bit. And... ehm... what is that green thing running parallel to the bridge? A river? If so- try making it a little less straight. It looks like a green highway now.
And thanks for the critiques!:)

[Gundersen]

Thanks for critts Windmaker, i TOTALT see what you mean, and am working on it now. My mind keep missing these esential small things that makes an image work alot better.

[Gundersen]

Just had a chat with Adam(Form), He is takeing a break from computer completly for two days after recomandation from Doctors... well i have no doubts he will sneak in when the urge to touch a Tablet is to large :) .

But he told us to have fun and help each other until saturday European time. So lets show him some kickass work when he is back again. And lets hope he is all well soon!

So lets keep posting as we work up our images, dont wait til the last day, even if you think you dont need help its nice to see the process of people, and sometimes you get a helpfull hint you havent thought about yourself!

[D.Labruyere]

ah, that's bad to hear :(

Well, let's make something beautifull together then. For form! :yayca:

[Gundersen]

Can someone else post an WIP update so I can post one later, if not i look like a noob spamming the forum :)

[Windmaker]

Here. A titanic battle ensues in the village below!

230819

I'm currently reworking the characters in the foreground.

[Gundersen]

hehe looks funny Windmaker! Maybe you could pierce a hole in the sky and let a sunbeam hit them, so you define the focus point. I guess the battle is the main focus, and not the children relaxing in the foreground watching their town getting mashed to piece :)


Here is an update on mine, worked on more organic mountains, sharpening up some parts and working out the general look to it. Added a tiny man to establish size.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/898/step6gb2.jpg

[Windmaker]

Gundersen: It looks much better now. Good work:) But the tiny man doesn't read very clearly... To me at least.I have trouble figuring out if the man is the lighter coloured shape or the smaller darker one. Or if the darker one is part of the lighter one's shadow. Try to achieve a more characteristic human silhouette. Look at some of Feng Zhu's paintings where he puts a really simple figure just to show the scale. However the figures always have identifiable limbs and head.

[D.Labruyere]

It actually took me a while to find the tiny man. As a crit: The building in the distance looks closer by then the hill before it. I think you can fade it away quite some more.

[Gundersen]

Thanks for critt guys, will look into it! :)

Btw post your own work aswell mates!

[Form]

NOT LONG NOOOWWWW!!!

231458

painted this for a friend who runs the clothing/jewellery label 'Chronicles of Never' (neverland/con of man). Some awesome work he does, and great poetry. The concept is that the path leads to Neverland (eternal youth) but is made from the sun's reflection and cannot be walked. It was painted while listening to the music loop on his website - www.chroniclesofnever.com

Cos of the eyes I only spent about 4 hours on this... its not as finished as I would like :)


Remember... you guys have less than a day. GO GO GO

[Form]

oh yeah, I also gave myself some challenges.

the painting is painted with values all above 50%, and all in one hue (the blue is just desaturated red).

[DanJohnCox]

damnit form, you make hate myself.

Ive got literally nothing worth showing. nonsensical sketches at best. Work has been crazy with ramping up into production and i've taken on more then i should've and im out of town, away from a computer again today and tomorrow.

well i frankly propose that next time i miss a deadline you boot me out. if i cant make the time to even remotely finish something then there are more deserving people who will make the time. but its totally your choice dude.
Sorry again, and thanks so much for everything you're doing for us. and dont let this stuff get in the way of your health, like everyone has said.

[Agustin Poratti]

wow - that's very trippy, adam..

gundersen: throw away that white border! it's harder to work with value that way. also, i thinkt they sky, in the background, could be clearer. furthermore, theres edges in that foreground building receiving green light, that should not be receiving it. the whole right side needs some polishing. the river may still be to straight for a natural river...

[Gundersen]

wow - that's very trippy, adam..

gundersen: throw away that white border! it's harder to work with value that way. also, i thinkt they sky, in the background, could be clearer. furthermore, theres edges in that foreground building receiving green light, that should not be receiving it. the whole right side needs some polishing. the river may still be to straight for a natural river...


Thanks alot for reply mate! Will look into all of your points and see what i can do about it. Wished youd shown your WIP aswell so we could comment on it.

Will post my final image in about 4-5 hours time :P

[Agustin Poratti]

i did.
and i heard what you said about the waterfall, but had to get rid of it. thanks anyways :)

[Gundersen]

hehe yes i answered on that. But people could post WIPs more regulary ... sucks that some people just post in the far end, so no one has the chance to give any critts. And i guess there are few people that can do their own piece without asking for tipps and helps, cause you fall in "love" with your own picture and dont see the mistakes.. :P

Look forward to see your finished piece. Hope many people manage the damn deadline this time!! :P hehe

[Agustin Poratti]

here's my final, for i gotta run.
went somewhat spookier than i expected.

selfcritique:
-problems with perspective (eyeballing figures)
-some problems with scale (either guys should be smaller, or mountains taller, or not have that much fog! - sigh)





"The Path"

[D.Labruyere]

Agustin Poratti and Form, both look great! I will try to critic all when all the finished pieces are in :)

Well, here's mine, now time to work a bit more on the first task of this week.

-daniel

[Gundersen]

Agustin nice picture! but as you say the scale is a little bit strange :) I think it is as you say yourself that either the people are to big or the mountains to small, cause atm the people are large compared to the mountains.

D.labruyere Nice submit mate, but arent you missing a path and a object in the distance? :)

Here is my final Image, let the flameing begin, but for myeslf i am quite happy to see that my painting skills has improved alot already!
The idea of the Image is this link between some facilities in a desert like planet. And on the right side there is running an acid lake.

http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Ferdig5.jpg

Edited my picture with some more straight lines, and here you go for the process:
http://www.clicken.no/Thomas/Atmos/Steps.jpg

[D.Labruyere]

kinda hoped the towers would count as a path and a object in the distance :perv:

[Gundersen]

So thats 3 out of 10 finished pieces so far, 5 hours left til deadline..

[Windmaker]

Form: Wow! Really nice painting! I love the look of the sky and all the suggested little details on the ground, that aren't really there. I'm glad to have you teaching us:)

Agustin Poratti: Neat! I really like all the figures there! I agree that maybe the fog should be less, but I don't see any scale problems. I just saw the mountains as little hills. Tiny mountains if you wish, but there's nothing wrong with tiny mountains:)

D.Labruyere: I love the shadows on the towers! They're so simple, yet convay so much information. There's a lot to be learned from value simplification. As a crit, I would've detailed the foreground mountain a bit more. Other than that - great job!

Gundersen: This came out pretty nice:) Good work! But, as Form mentioned a week ago, try using the lasso tool from time to time. It would help the image if some of the lines that are supposed to be straight are actually straight.

Well... here's mine. I can't do anything else to it without ruining it, so I declare it officially finished.

231830

Here are a few close-ups at about 50% of the original size.

231831

And here is a step-by-step of the landscape. I'd be glad if it helps somebody to either learn something or give me advice. I wanted to go with the epic battle between dinosaur and UFO, but changed my mind in the last minute and added the people and the village instead:))):teeth:

231832

[daldbaatar]

Hello folks. Here is my final work. I wanted to draw a castle in a rocky but lands. I thought i should better put a Mongolian Cavalry from the middle ages on the grandway. Cus the main pic was looking empty. And then i also realised that the Fortified city looks kinda deserted..doesnt it. I think its becaus the aint much roofs showing and cracks on the wall and there aint much buildings and houses inside walls. oh well. I will try harder next time.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8193/castlegh8.jpg

Here is the first version.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/6163/castle1ta0.jpg


Crits. These are all my opinions...nothing against you guys. It doesnt mean what im saying is right...Dont feel offended.
Agustin: Good job man. The only thing that had to be done was more accurate ghost figure and a lot more of them coming from the bottom of the pic. And should have had a more glow.
D.Lab: Good. I think the inconsistency of the height and width of the tower makes it look weird. And there shouldve been more detail on the mountain since its closer.
Gundersen: U have improved well since last time bro. Well there is only one thing i have to say here is that there aint much rich mood and tones here.
Windmaker: Cool! I think the light and shades on the UFO and T-Rex aint looking right.
Thats all i have to say for now.

[Gundersen]

Windmaker Thanks :), Your picture loks good, good work

daldbaatar thanks for critt, not 100% sure what you mean by not rich mood and tone? Your picture looks realy good, and your getting closer and closer to the actual deadline :P hehe, only missed by 3 hours this time

[daldbaatar]

Windmaker Thanks :), Your picture loks good, good work

daldbaatar thanks for critt, not 100% sure what you mean by not rich mood and tone? Your picture looks realy good, and your getting closer and closer to the actual deadline :P hehe, only missed by 3 hours this time

Nah man. What i suggested is that u seemed to block in the shadows with only one color it seems. If u look close to some real things it aint look that way...Thanks man

[rvdtor]

whoa lots of great entries i feel so bad i rushed mine...stupid time differences. oh well i did my best.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4553/60782206yi8.jpg

comments:
augustin whoa man those are some great color transitions and the gate at the end and the little details on the guys adds to the overall feel. i didn't notice the tiny hills thing so i guess its not that big of an issue.

form i like how the little details and your sense of color and forms is excellent...its great have you to teach us...hope your eye thingy gets better...can't afford to lose you.

Gundersen when i first saw your wip's i though it was your silo again. but then the shapes started taking form and i liked how you handled the terrain...the gradient in the beginning does help a lot in defining the other details doesn't it? your lighting is good too.

windmaker brilliant it actually looks cold and the darkened sky adds to the overall gloomy effect. the little details in your characters and the tree and leaves was great...the grooves and your brushwork on the visible mountain sides and snow was well done too.

D.Labruyere i love those pillars the colors are simple and the contrast on them works great . im digging your clouds too and that mount. its a bit confusing looking for the path but i must say its a good idea the way u described it.

daldbaatar very inspiring piece man i like the textures you used on the ground and on the castle, your perspective is spot on the shapes and on the castle...your shading is good too. the only thing that bothers me is how chunky your main character is along with the ground and mountain tho it adds to the style. also the chara being a bit too big takes up a lot of the bg when the main focus is the background. but thats just me good job tho.

[Form]

hey guys its been too long a day... too many deadlines! im gonna wrap this up in the morning,.. you have a tiny extension... 8 hrs

[Agustin Poratti]

Labruyere:i like your idea. it does read as a path to me and generates a nice air in the middle. i hope it counts as an object in the distance also :/.
you may need more texture on the pillars to pull the piece to a higher level.

gunderesen: you're progressing a lo' man, and that's important. i still see some rocks taking green light on upper right corner that kind of shouldn't be. maybe they're too far from the river to catch light from it? also, i think the building in the background looks a bit sketchy. like, that black outline?

windmaker: nice work. i think the foreground should be a lot darker (or brighter?) to lift up. it's somehwat difficult to notice the guys are standing very high above the village. also, i'd throw a lot more fog/haze into the pit, if you know what i mean.
LOL, dinosor - ufo

daaldbatar: i like it. very nice old schoolish ilustr. here's a crit: see the shadows on some pillars? they're casting a "4 o clock" shadow. the castle isnt. at least not onto the ground. either make the castle cast the same shadow, or change the shadow on the pillars?

rvdtor: nice stylization. love the blonde. however, the "object",e ven though its atmospheric effects, looks a bit "taped" in. maybe if the hills behind it werent so purple, but more of the object color, it would be more cohesive.. maybe?

[Gundersen]

Thanks for critts Augustin, since we had a bit extended time i tried to solve the problems you said .. Hopefully it looks a bit better now :)

[D.Labruyere]

3 hours to go. How many do we still need? :)

[Gundersen]

4 People missing on the final hand in, And i dont know how many took part in the discussion we where told to participate in :)

[Form]

D. Labruyere Post #86:

Thanks for showing your process :) Im sure this will help those who want to start putting more effort into the skies in their pieces. There is a lot more to clouds that you will pick up with more studies - essentially realise they are big fluffy balls of atmosphere, so the way light bounces around in them is insane. The one thing i would say is you need to build up layers and complex shapes in the clouds, but remembering there are also big, dominant forms within that.

Windmaker: Post #93:
Lol.. i was considering giving you an 'Pro' overall mark just for this awesome effort :P Ninja VS Pirate... Karate VS Kung Fu... Scorpion VS Wasp... and now DINO VS UFO... haha!

blinkythemouse post #100:
thanks for being honest about your time management issues :P Do your best to keep up - you are a valued contributor. Your deadlines and life will become even busier when you step into the professional ring, trust me! As hard as it seems to be now... try to keep stepping it up... and the #1 rule is ALWAYS finish something for a client... even if it ends up being crap by your standards... its better than delivering nothing :P Anyway you completed the study tasks so im not gonna boot you out :P I just hope you can spend some more time with us next week :P

agustin poratti #105:
I really like your final man! It shows you really picked up and capitalised on what you learned this week. Infact it is a kick in the ass for me as well - i need to stay on top of this or I will get slaughtered by my own troops :P
Your atmospheric perspective is really clear - you have subordinated edges, values, and saturation as the painting recedes and i get a real sense of depth. The colours are harmonious, and I like the temperature change from cool to warm front to back. The design of the shape in the BG is nice too - it reminds me of the foster painting with the giant squid! The little people are nice too. You are right - there is something weird about the scale, but at first read i figured the figures to be giant spirits, sort of like in mononoke. To critique, I would say the composition of elements is the main thing. Its very central and the eyes are really locked into one up and down motion. This makes the rest of the painting feel really empty. In fact, you could even crop off the left and right 3rds of the painting and have a vertical composition...
But really nice!

[Agustin Poratti]

no dude - much respect to you. these are actually the very first environments i create in my life. you pull the best out of us! you're a great teacher!
you could never get slaughtered by me!!
at least not in this classroom... wanna step outside? LOL :P
i pray for your eyes.
bye.

[Form]

d. labruyere post 106:

cool, I like this final too. But there are some things that let it down. Firstly it looks a bit rushed - your brushwork on the mountains is very hasty and looks like you dropped the ball half way through. The composition is made weird by how close the right hand tower is to the border of the canvas, and the towers show no scale or any kind of design - they are just big poles really... but most importantly, your atmospheric perspective doesnt work because your mountains in the background are the most saturated thing in your image - you have forgotten the elements of atmosphere. You also have the most edges here! I find my eyes focusing more on the clouds and background than the foreground features... Its a 'pass' all round, but i think you can do better next time.

gundersen 105:

great to see your improvement man! you have been a really worthwhile member of the group. I like what i see here - your edges have improved, your work feels more solid, your lighting is better... its starting to come together.

I can see you have thought about how the light in the foreground is casting shadows, you have some nice rolling mist, the composition works fairly well and it all meshes together.... I guess the design is lacking somewhat (they still feel like very basic cubes). Also the way you have composed the elements is a bit off. Consider the rock spike in the middle and how it is directly in line with the background tower. This creates a very strong vertical line which dominates the painting and becomes distracting. Also, the yellow there is hard to distinguish whether it is the lake you were talking about, or if its light.... its an odd shape. Also you could have pushed the warm-cool temperature change a little bit too... but yeah, nice improvement dude - your edge work is really getting there. :)

windmaker #110:

cool man - glad you had the confidence when you felt you were at your limit. Shawn Barber speaks about this on his DVD - about the misconception that people 'overwork' things. The real problem he said, is people reach the point where they lack the knowledge to continue, but they continue anyway. Knowing when to stop and when to keep going is an important skill. I still think you could have fixed the straight line in the foreground and composed it a bit better - seems composition will be a good topic for all of us to cover in the weeks to come. This is a nice painting - the atmosphere works well (you have used a somewhat limited/difficult pallette of blue-greys) and im glad you put figures in there. Its easy on the eyes. I would be careful with your scale - the path in the foreground looks like a one-man walking trail, but in scale next to the houses it looks like a 2 lane road.. make sure you keep things in the same scale to avoid confusion... and the way the foreground lines up with the background path makes it a little confusing. Your lighting isnt 100% consistent... the characters really 'set' the lighting, and the light on the terrain doesnt really reflect the same lighting from the left. Even when you are panoramic, big objects still cast big shadows! And with the foliage, try not to use custom brushes that simulate leaves... it results in the leaves being waaaay too detailed compared to everything else and it is really distracting... remember, foliage is like clouds... you have to think of them as big forms. Think of the leaves in big clumps, and give each clump its own light and shadow... instead of trying to simulate each individual leaf. FInally, as with some of the others this week, the composition is a bit central and could be better off if the focal point/s were placed off center. Thanks for showing your step by step and details... im sure everyone appreciates it.

daldbaatar: post 111:

cool man! the character/horse is a really strong addition! i really like your confident strokes and the form here. its lacking some refinement for something so close, but the first read is really good! for the environment, i think you did a really nice job here on the foreground and background, but the midground is what needs work. The castle itself is what needs the work. I think the main problem is a lack of variety in the design, its a bit too simple. And because it is placed right on the horizon line (makes it feel unrealistic) it sort of looks like a super mario castle - flat and 2d. Because your forms are hard to read, it doesnt look like it is in perspective. It looks like a big 2d shape. I think it needed to be a bit off the horizon so you could give it some angles and break up that big shape. Also, throwing some more colour variation in there would have helped - the whole scene feels a bit monochrome as you get to the castle. I think its just a case of a bit more work needed. Overall the piece reads great, and the placement of the rider and the castle balance each other out well. The overlap and the repeated receding shapes are really well executed. Nice one ;) I was really close to giving you a High Pass.. a little bit extra time spent will grab you the extra points, if you want em :P

rvdtor:

unfortunate you didnt get the study tasks done, and you had to rush this piece. i think it affected the outcome. your colour shapes are quite oversimplified and lack variation. The foliage/beach/water do not get very affected at all by the atmospheric perspective and then it jumps suddenly to the far background which makes it look almost like vector art. The shapes of the same 3 sections are also very simple and geometric without overlap or interesting silhouette... there are some nice touches here on the waves, clouds... but i think you would be well served going over some more of the stuff in this thread and applying some more of the theory to your artwork. Hope you can join us actively in the coming weeks.

[Form]

232914

[Form]

no-one has gone pro yet!!! :P im going to dangle the carrot a while longer ;)

jorge gecov and nathan house did not participate at all... they have been cut from the class. People on the waiting list have been messaged and one spot has already filled... we will see who else joins us in the new week. Mio (the lying prophet) has given me an explanation of why they cannot participate any more so thats cool, thanks for being with us :P We will see new participants next week, and i hope we can all be as active as possible... or at least get in touch if there is a reason you cant make the deadline.

As you can see I wont hesitate to shuffle people through if they start dropping off without an explanation! Im sorry i couldnt be here as much this week because of my eyes - im working through solutions for that and am still fine to keep running this, so dont you guys worry about that at all - thanks for your concern.. appreciate it very much. I'll be good to kick ass for a while yet :) Im not going down without a fight. Possibly a laser-fight!

Im going to write up week 3 now... i look forward to spending more time with you all this week as I'm on a very cool, flexible project at the moment that will give me a bit more free time :) Thanks again to you guys who are really active here. I hope the new members will create an even better environment for learning. You did a really good job of critiquing and pushing each other - please continue to do so.

Cool :)
A

[Form]

I am going to wait until the reserve listers get back to me before putting up week 3... you can all take a breather and do whatever. Im out to life drawing for a few hours, ill check messages when i get back... congrats on another successful week.

[Gundersen]

Thanks Adam. Look forward for next week, and gonna keep pushing myself for improvement. Currently exploring a bit about brushese while we have this tiny break. Wanna try to have a little more loose style maybe on the next one, but we will see :P hehe

[rvdtor]

thanks for the kick in the arse man needed it gotta push harder i know i'll review this week's stuffs and do my own studies applying the rest. thanks man

[D.Labruyere]

looking forward to week 3. I'm having a week long holiday so I'll be greatly active this week :)

I see what you mean Form. I actually didn't knew what to do next after the first steps, and wasted a lot of time on just trying things, making the end look rushed. I geuss I just have a problem with the finishing moves. Will try harder on next assignment :)

once again, thanks for doing this! Learning tons.

[Agustin Poratti]

lol, we need a common room or something where we classmates can speak freely without being heard by Form!

example:
"so... yah, form told me i'd get very nice marks if i sent him some pen nibs, he's seen better times dude.... "

:P

you're the man, form. taking the break too- let's make music.

[rvdtor]

can i ask what the study tasks were? if its not too much trouble?

[Gundersen]

can i ask what the study tasks were? if its not too much trouble?


Read the first post of the thread! :)

[rvdtor]

The task is to choose two of the photorefs, observe and then do a study copy of it. NO COLOUR PICKING IS ALLOWED. Try to capture the atmospheric effects, and make the space feel 'deep'. Dont worry about detail! The rest of your study time needs to be spent analysing what makes atmospheric perspective work, and discussing that here in the thread. This discussion will be a Fail, Pass, High Pass, or Pro on the marking sheet.

as far as i can tell that's the task. i did the photoref stuff but not the discussion and still failed ack.
~sigh guess will do these over and crunch in the other week's work.

[Earendil]

Welp, while I was waiting for Week 4, here are my tasks for Week 2. A little over 2 hours total.

I want to keep going on that 2nd one. I got close I think, but definitely spend more time on it in future projects. I'm not as accurate as I think I am.

[D.Labruyere]

well aerendil, while waiting for week 4 Ill throw in some critics!

numbero uno:

I like this one better then the other one. I think you pinned down the colors better. The purple in the distance has I think a tiny bit to much grey in it, and the green in the distance could be a bit darker I geuss. I see some brown spots in the forest of your painting which I don't see 1-2-3 within the forest itself, but otherwise, good job!

numbero two:

There is a lot of grey inside this one which you don't see back in the distance. On the picture you see in the distance actually a lot of colors, white, brown, yellow, blue, which I think you missed in your painting. Also it looks like your atmospheric perspective looks to come far sooner then in the actual photo. When you can see in the photo through whole the street, your sight already ends after a few meters.

hope this helped :)

daniel

[Earendil]

Yeah, that's why I wanted to keep going the 2nd one, but I stick to the time limits ascribed. I'll get faster though. Yeah, it looks more like a foggy day doesn't it? This may come in handy when trying to alter the er...atmospheric density. Various levels of fog == further/closer distance of haze to the viewer.

Thanks for the crits! These are good exercises to do, class or no class. :)

[Gundersen]

HAHA the time limits :P :P :P

Look away from the time limits, its not limits, its suggestions to how long it should take. Some people use longer and some people shorter time. Take your own time and learn what it is about, speed is not always a good thing! :)

[D.Labruyere]

heh, I can say I waste hours and hours on things people ought to do in 5 minutes. But then again, I'm a mouse user at the moment (I'm probably going to buy my first tablet in 12 days :confident ) so some things are a bit more difficult to achieve.

[Earendil]

Hey congrats? What tablet? I'm using an OLLLLD Intuos 2 at the moment. Need to scanner seriously...

[D.Labruyere]

I don't know which one I'm going to buy yet, something cheap :p but anything is better then a mouse I geuss :)

[Agustin Poratti]

labru, really glad you buying a tablet man, it's a must.
and that's "número" not numbero :)

[robmorfin]

Wierd feeling going with the color picker around the image just to have an idea of what happens with the colors as they recede, everything in shadows was blue-violet and everything illuminated was orange-pink, could have never guessed it.

Color at FG of this image was darker, more saturated, and lights were brighter, whatever cobtrasted against the background was detailed and sharp lines, contrast in dark areas were more noticeable here.

At MG, color started to become duller (more grayish), detail started to get blurry.

At BG, no detail at all, dullest and almost blending with the sky, in fact, if there were hills after that, they will not be seen.

Process:

[robmorfin]

second one, I have to keep trying these, it's a great exercise to develop a good eye and find out how the atmospere is created and how the colors are being mixed 3Dmensionally.