[Frog]

Hiya,

in need of some quick advice, I'm trying to paint this here mountain from reference and not really happy with my method or my results.



Basically, I've blocked in the shape of the mountain and the main shadow area but I'm finding getting into the detail problematic. Just trying to replicate the structure in a very detailed manner seems a bit noodly so I'm trying to rough it in. My approach so far has been a little impressionistic where I'm trying to give a feeling for the underlying structure of the rocks without actually going for 100% accuracy, but it doesn't seem to be working, probably because my observation isn't accurate enough to give a good rendering.

If anyone has some advice on how they would tackle such a problem and the steps involved I would really appreciate it.

I've attached a deeply embarrassing jpg of my progress so far to give you an idea of how wrong it's all going



[Edit] Actually, looking at the ref directly on top of my image is startling in itself, I was working with my painting on one monitor and my ref on the other and seeing them on top of each other rather than side by side has already made me look differently!!! Mostly made me realise just how terrible this attempt is

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Frog ]

[Ian Jones]

I think you nailed it in one yourself. The two monitors problem. If you have to look too far from whatever you are drawing to your drawing, then you lose concentration etc..

Otherwise, I think you are making some fairly sound judegements on colour, shading etc. It's not an easy thing to paint, it is so 'bitty'. Don't get too worried about it, I think the word you used says it all... 'impressionistic'. Just use some sort of process that gives the impression, no need to go into those crazy rocky details.

[ceenda]

I think there's alot to be said for the power of 'suggestion' when embarking on a complex piece. For instance, if you were put a rugged greyscale texture on a multiply layer and put it over the mountain you've completed so far it would, at least, take attention away from the large basic shapes that you're trying to emphasise. (just an example of a method, not saying it's good to do that)

Try playing with custom brushes that leave ragged edges.

You may have to bite the bullet and just emphasise some little details here and there on the picture just to give the viewer a sense of the scale.

(you're actually doing quite a good job there)

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: ceenda ]

[eyewoo]

I think you have a very good underpainting start there. I presume you are using Photoshop. I would suggest starting to lay in some of the detail by actually drawing with the lasso tool and using the LEVELS adjustment and COLOR balance to bring out or take down the color.

Drawing with the lasso tool in conjunction with any of the adjustments tools or any of the brushes is a great way to create detail. It's a digital medium and they are digital tools... use them

[Frog]

Thanks for the input so far:

Ian: Some sort of process to give an impression is exactly what I'm after, however I don't seem to have reached a satisfactory solution yet. I think that my observation has been sloppy so I haven't nailed the structure very well, but then the next problem is finding a way to abstract or represent that structure in a convincing way without actually resorting to tons of detail.

Ceenda: You're right, some texture would help hide the flaws in what I've done so far but the approach I really want to use is to deal with texture last. To achieve this I need my underpainting to be solid - which it isn't yet - texture I honestly have no problem with, although this image doesn't have any it is because it's still at an early stage where I'm struggling with the form.

Eyewoo: I am aware of your lasso technique, I've read both your tutorials and have taken stuff from each but I really prefer to lay my strokes down with the tablet simply because I find that process more immediate, spontanous and enjoyable. I do often use masks and paths as well as image editing commands when I work but I also enjoy the process of painting at the moment. However the tools and methods one uses are an individual choice and I don't think using the lasso would solve my problem which is more one of observation and interpretation rather than actual painting technique. If I lay down bum strokes with the lasso or with the brush it doesn't really make any difference

I was really hoping that people who are used to painting things of this complexity might be able to offer me some insight, I've seen paintings by Spooge, Henrik and Loki that deal with complex natural shapes such as mountains where they have managed to convey a sense of a structure in a limited number of strokes and was really wondering what processes they use to achieve this? Is it a semi random and spontaneous process that achieves a believable result or is it based on accurate observation which is somehow distilled down?

[AKIRA_x]

General tip: Paint what you see, not what you think should be.....if there is a unregular hard black line down the mountain..dont THINK its a shadow that needs a fading inn since in reallife there are no sharp shadows...just..paint what you see...a hard black line.....as you look at the original image..its enormously complex....with everything from soft shadows to aparently hard black and white lines...

other then that...your mountain looks great.

AKIRA

[BooMSticK]

something I have experinced alot when painting nature - mountains, cloud formations, distant hills etc. is that one should be very, very carefull of how shapes within shapes are looking.

What I mean is that within your general shape of the mountain you should pay attention to how individual clifs, rocks are differentiating in shapes and sizes. Make them individual.

Repeating shapes kill perspecive and sense of scale!

I can see many areas where you have fallen into this trap. It's very hard not to and it is a tedious job eliminating those repetitive shapes.

Work from big to small. Don't move on painting detail before your big shapes are ready and in place.

hope this helps
,boom

[Frog]

Akira: I know that my mistakes are observational ones but I guess I'm having trouble making sense out of the complexity of the information there...

Boom: Thanks!!! That's the best advice so far, you've put your finger right onto one of my mistakes. I was trying to do something vague and impressionistic but in fact did something repetitive and inaccurate. It needs variation to more closlely match the real thing.

[Vhy]

I think the basic shape of the mountain has gotten a little too unclear. What I see in the photo is basically a left plane and a right plane ( facing away from the light ), and the rest of the details are displaced from those planes.