Results 1 to 3 of 3
December 7th, 2008 #1
have to present a series of landscape for school on thursday, so i'm going to post them here to hopefully get some help, would post it in my SB, but the area seems better for crits.
this one for today
hope you can help
December 8th, 2008 #2
The straight horizontal line of grass in the middle is very disruptive to the composition. It makes it feel like two completely separate paintings have been pasted together. This leaves the top half feeling very confusing and flat.
If the top half of the image is supposed to be sky, then we need a better sense of a horizon to separate it from the water. Some atmospheric perspective would help -- let the detail really recede as it gets further into the background. And break up the straight line of grass with some interesting shapes.
However, if the top half is supposed to be a continuation of the river, then there needs to be more going on there to connect it to the water below. More grasses, rocks, little bits of organic irregularities to help sell it as water.
And although the bottom half is nicely painted, there just isn't much there to hold the viewer's interest.
No matter what you do to the image, reference is your friend. Bring some more sharply detailed objects to the foreground.
"Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it" -- Confucius
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
The Following User Says Thank You to Pixelestial For This Useful Post:
December 8th, 2008 #3
The middle ground is sharper than the foreground. Even at night the sky is the lightest part but you've used the same colours for the water. You could almost separate this into two different pictures that might work by cutting it half.