[Jillian]

I am really hitting my head up against a wall with this one, I've made a break through, as far as making something without any references (at all!! yay!) But the trouble now is finishing it.

So it is supposed to be a woman laying on the surface of the water, after hours and hours of attempting to make water without a reference, I succeeded in the first painting, but I've lost so much detail, and the water is distracting, I tried adding floating petals to make it better...but..

Painting number 2, is what it looks like without water, I was thinking maybe she could just be underwater or something.

Any suggestions, comments or any other glaring mistakes you guys want to throw at me would be very appreciated.

Thanks for viewing!!

[Memphis]

First of all: very beautiful! And very well done.

If you want to draw her under water, you could add some bubbles and maybe a lightsource for an indication where the surface of the water is, example. Beams of light into the water around here would fit very well.

As for the first one. I think that the white dress is too pronounced at the folds. This makes it look more like she's covered in plastic that's floating on the water. Interesting though. Maybe the fabric should be a tad darker because it's softened by the water, making a better distinction between light on the water and the white parts of the dress.

Good luck, and keep us updated! I'd like to see how it turns out.

[Gotnospoons]

Now I am by all means not a concept artists but I think I have something that may help.

The 2 paintings are completely different in the sense of mood, I would focus on what mood you are trying to achieve and then figure out if you want her under water or on top.

I think you did a very good job with the rendering. Be careful not to just add things just to add them such as the rose petals, try to give it a meaning because the petals portray a certain feeling in the painting. If what you add helps to add to the overall mood in you vision then great!

Personally, I like under water, that doesn't mean on top is bad of course =D.

I hope this makes sense and helps you.
_________________
Truth is the essence of life, if that truth flows freely from you then why do so many choose to ignore it? --me

[sweetums]

She's not laying on water with that pose, the legs are bent as wonky angles with the thighs more elevated than her head...Definitely needed reference for that...

Speaking of her legs, the way you've spread them looks weird, and the values make them look sickly thin.

The water looks like the Photoshop Plastic Wrap filter...Again, references would have helped you with that.

While it is always admirable to paint something without using refs, you need to know what you're painting.

How many water surfaces have you painted WITH references, so that you KNOW how to paint water surfaces?

How many women have you painted laying down (floating or not) without references? Reclining poses are not the same as upright, and your woman does not look like she is floating, nor that much like she is even reclining. Sne looks like she's striking a sexy pose in an OB/GYN exam chair with the stirrups painted out...

I think you should break down and use some ref photos to try to tweak this into shape a bit more...
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[Futurexrisen]

If you want to create the illusion that she's underwater from an overhead perspective, you might want to darken the background a bit more towards the top to match the bottom (while also indicating the above light source with reflections on her body). Also, keep in mind that because she is underwater, her hair has to also be shown floating around the front of her face.

Other than that and a few finishing touches on the clothes, I think you did a terrific job without using refs.