Poetry Forum

A companion piece to the Borrowdale one. I can't remember where I shot the original photo, hence the somewhat generic 'Lakeland View' title. Quite a few trees, so it's probably somewhere in the Southern Lakes.

Is it me, or has something gone wrong?
The sky is nearer than the foreground no matter how far back I go

A disturbing picture, Catherine.

J.

I'm afraid these are all beginning to look a bit the same to me! sorry.

Michaela

Thanks for the comments.

I suspect the photograph is the problem. You'll just have to trust me that this works well as a companion piece to the Borrowdale one, and that it has a vibrancy and energy that is completely lacking in this crappy reproduction. I'll enjoy it on my living room wall until I sell the pair of them next summer via an exhibition (unless someone snaps them up beforehand).

For those interested in techniques; this is done using multiple glazes starting over gesso with medium tones, then working darker and lighter with scumbles between glazes in order to achieve depth and texture. Main colours used: Prussian blue and burnt sienna. It takes years to master the techniques, but only an hour to produce the picture. The final effect is indistinguishable from an oil painting, due to the high gloss and impasto, but is of course much quicker to produce due to drying times of seconds rather than hours/weeks.

JohnLott wrote:Is it me, or has something gone wrong?
The sky is nearer than the foreground no matter how far back I go

I think John has a point - it looks like you've knocked a cup of sky over your paining!

I liked the Borrowdale one. There just doesn't seem to be anything arresting in this one (unless you count the spilt sky).

Mic

No probs. I completely disagree, but that's okay.

Once again this seems to be highlighting the issue of it being in one's face on a back-lit pc screen as opposed to viewing at a sensible distance with the light coming off the picture being natural or the same as that affecting the appearance of its surroundings. I'm not sure if using the same greens in the foreground as in the more distant area is doing this manner of displaying the picture any justice and I do appreciate this kind of bish bash bosh approach as it feels less contrived than some other styles. The composition is perhaps a bit bland but like you say, someone will most likely buy it because it conveys an impression they connect with. I agree it comes across as being generic and I'm sure one could sit and paint countless versions with no reference required to aid in that pursuit and sell them on a regular basis. Not much else to say really as you say the sky works when viewed in the conventional manner, perhaps it might be useful to post a much smaller image of the picture framed?

all the best

Danté

Thanks Danté. Good idea about posting much smaller versions. I look at them on this site and think, 'yikes! doesn't really look like that, honest!' Thing is, I post from the same source on a number of forums, but it comes out differently wherever I post due to the software of the particular site. Even colours change, bizarrely. No idea how that happens. And size varies enormously.

I like this piece and I'm sure it looks much better in person. From what I can see there is more texture in the sky than in the land. This is a problem because my eye is drawn more to the sky. The sky seems to pop out more. I don't know if it is very realistic to have such a bright sky and such a dark landscape. I feel like you could work in some lighter tones to the land to greater effect, and achieve more depth at the same time. I'd like to see some more highlight and texture in the land as it appears a little flat. Again, I'm sure it is better in person.

M

Thanks Marten.

There's a lot more depth to the land in the original. I should point out I never use black at all, but even on my monitor where I've tried to get it as close as possible to the original, there are great dead areas that appear black. The problem with the sky is similar. It's too washed out in the reproduction, which gives it an unrealistic brightness. Possibly I could improve this with a decent photo editor, but I don't have one, so that's that.

The original picture changes colour considerably depending on the lighting of the room, which doesn't help matters. Where I have it hanging at the moment, it has an almost sepia warmth, but looked at in sunshine, it goes bright turquoise. Funny thing, colour.

delph_ambi wrote:Possibly I could improve this with a decent photo editor, but I don't have one, so that's that.

Ever tried Gimp? It's free and can do most of the things a high end editor can.

I did try gimp for a while, but decided I'd sooner spend time working with traditional media rather than trying to master the intricacies of proper photo-editing. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom, as they say.