It definitely looks better softened. Along with some over texturing/super detailing (like on the trees and water), the sharpness gave it a synthetic, unnatural sort of quality. Also inconsistent, as compared to areas like the sky or the rendering on the cloth materials.
I see some weaknesses based on this image such as cloth drapery, facial structure (noses all look scrunched), and hands (eg., awkwardness in the guy's raised hand) as well as anatomy overall.
Also, with regard to the woman washing (drying?) the other woman's leg. In your version, it looked very awkward and confusing as to what was happening there at first (whose foot/leg was whose), but looking at the original, it is very clear, based on positioning, proper anatomy/gesture and effective use of lighting.
One other thing I just noticed, looking at your image, I thought you had mistakenly left a white line showing where the water met the grassy ground (epitome of a tangent!), but looking at the original, it is clear that the white line is part of the bow since that bank on the water is naturally irregular.
Nice study overall. That must have taken you a good while!
Last edited by wooblood; July 15th, 2010 at 06:00 PM.
Thanks. I probably was having way too much fun with all the details. I did tone them down (they were even more detailed earlier) but still not enough. I'll add more shadow to the noses, try to separate those legs a bit more and re-look at the hands.
I love master paintings like this because even though you can sort of understand what's going on, everything still looks insane or unintentionally funny.
I think your version is good but in some areas it feels a bit awkward. The black woman washing the chick in the corner looks like a black man in a dress in your rendition - no offense, but I thought it was a man at first observation. The woman peeking out from behind the pillar seems a bit creepy as does the small detail of the heads on the fountain, specifically the one below one of the women bathing. At first I thought it was a little creature instead of stone work.
Some of the faces appear too plastic. It could be the softened coloring, but they end up looking very smooth and artificial to me. I think your best figure is the man to the very far left waving his hands about.
Replicating master work is hard but usually a very good learning experience.
Nice and vibrant, love your version of certain stuff better.
Don't worry, you are allso studying a detail freak's work.
With a large piece like this I think consistancy might become a problem. Good to take a zoom out and a sideway's look from time to time, squint etc(confuse the dog) to get a feeling for harmony, just follow your instincts and remember to enjoy it.
---------------------------------- Scetchbook: View the exhibitionist's stuff.
I think what first caught my eye were the faces. the masters undoubtedly spent lots of hours drawing faces so I think once you spend as many hours in the faces as you've clearly done with the textures (great job by the way on that) it will really pop.
I've done a little draw over, i'm no face genius but I think we're it's falling flat is the faces need a lot more structure and deepen the eyes. What I find is if the face is looking remarkable you can see where the body needs to be tweaked a lot easier. I also helped a bit with the hump back the lady washing... it's an odd angle so it's hard to determine exactly what's happening anatomy wise there.
I've done more accurate Master Studies, but wanted to change a fair bit in this one. In the original Diana's right leg is not attached, her head is too small on her broken neck and the water wasn't horizontal. I didn't quiet correct the water enough and if you reverse both, mine is sliding down the hill slightly less. As I've been doing a number of Master Studies recently, I got bored with replication for it's own sake and wanted to make more of my own statement. I know it still has its shortcomings, and I'll work on them over this weekend. Any more suggestions for improvements welcomed.