My first background practice thing. I wanted to start with something I'm at least moderately familiar with, forest scenes. I had a pretty clear idea on how I wanted to do the top half of the painting, that was all fairly familiar to me. The bottom half I was completely lost on, so I just sorta made stuff up as I went.
The composition isn't great, and the sense of depth is a bit off, but it honestly still went better than I had anticipated. As practice, I'll accept it. Next time, maybe something a little more indoorsy.
Thanks to
sasya for finding me (and taking, I believe!) the reference picture. It can be found here: http://negative.gs/~foxy/Alaska/201.....5_09.41.07.jpg
The composition isn't great, and the sense of depth is a bit off, but it honestly still went better than I had anticipated. As practice, I'll accept it. Next time, maybe something a little more indoorsy.
Thanks to
sasya for finding me (and taking, I believe!) the reference picture. It can be found here: http://negative.gs/~foxy/Alaska/201.....5_09.41.07.jpg
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 636 x 821px
File Size 132.8 kB
That obvious, eh? x3 I would be lying if I said there was no influence there. I'm looking for a way of painting that doesn't take large amount of time to render a scene but can still support fairly crisp detail. Comic artists just happen to need exactly that, and Bill happens to have worked in watercolours I believe, so it seemed like a good place to start looking for ideas.
I HAET U RU.
I hate you because you said you're not good at bgs >_>
you damn lier >^>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
(I love it ;w;)
I hate you because you said you're not good at bgs >_>
you damn lier >^>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
(I love it ;w;)
True fact, sir, true fact. There used to be a tv commercial for Art Institutes or some school like that here where they showed a guy doing all kinds of realistic pencil drawings and it was supposed to impress you that he was a Real Artist, but they just ended up looking dull and lifeless.
Ooh, very pretty. As so many others have said, it does sort of remind me of Watterson's work, though I think there's plenty of your own style in there as well. I quite like how you painted the trees, both the ones close to the "camera" and the ones further off in the distance. It really gives you a sense of being there in that forest, just waiting to discover whatever is over that slight rise. I don't know how realistic you want to be able to go with these, but I think that something like this would compliment your character work very well, and I've always thought that the slightly cartoony look of your backgrounds in general made them a lot of fun.
Anyway. I'm glad that you were able to get some good suggestions out of that journal, and that this turned out so well for you!
Anyway. I'm glad that you were able to get some good suggestions out of that journal, and that this turned out so well for you!
Everything looked exactly the same...he used the same colors, the same brushes, the same mocking words. He had his style, and it never changes; he never seemed to show that you could get better by doing different things. If he was teaching beginners, he was pretty damn good; however, he never wet above that level. I know it was just a PBS show, and probably was just supposed to be for teaching, but I never saw any specials for him to show what he really could do.
And then he sold out with the Bob Ross Painting Kit, sold in stores all over the place. *eyerolls*
And then he sold out with the Bob Ross Painting Kit, sold in stores all over the place. *eyerolls*
Honestly I kind of agree. I started watching his stuff at one point. For the first few episodes I was really impressed, but then I slowly realized it wasn't going anywhere. After the first season I figured I got everything I was going to get out of it and just stopped watching.
It's also pretty apparent that he didn't really know how to do anything structural. I suffer from this as well a bit- random trees and shrubs are a lot easier the straight lines and fine details. But I saw one of his episodes where there was a building as the focal point, and the building looks pretty terribad. I feel kind of horrible bad mouthing Ross, he seemed like a really chill dude, but it didn't seem like there was a lot of depth to his paintings...
'course, there's not a huge amount of depth to my work either, let's be clear. x3
It's also pretty apparent that he didn't really know how to do anything structural. I suffer from this as well a bit- random trees and shrubs are a lot easier the straight lines and fine details. But I saw one of his episodes where there was a building as the focal point, and the building looks pretty terribad. I feel kind of horrible bad mouthing Ross, he seemed like a really chill dude, but it didn't seem like there was a lot of depth to his paintings...
'course, there's not a huge amount of depth to my work either, let's be clear. x3
Well, you're doing at least one more thing than he ever did in his paintings..you draw "people" (i.e Furries). I never saw any people in his paintings..not even in the background. He just did landscapes and sunsets (with trees in the foreground). A friend of mine called him a "Treehugger" and thinking back, yeah, but in a different sense (Oh look..a tree!) ;)
Even Monet, who made a living off of his "waterlilies" series *swoons* put peeps into his backgrounds often. But that lonely pine suddenly became a whole clump of trees, obscuring whatever he started out to paint.
Even Monet, who made a living off of his "waterlilies" series *swoons* put peeps into his backgrounds often. But that lonely pine suddenly became a whole clump of trees, obscuring whatever he started out to paint.
> The bottom half I was completely lost on, so I just sorta made stuff up as I went.
The technical term for this I think is "abstracting," hehe ...
Seems OK to me. To add more depth I think it needs more small trees far off into the distance, or maybe more layers of "leaf blobs," but it's not like you were wanting a high level of detail in the first place. I also think to recreate some of the detail-ish-ness of the source you need deeper color contrasting in the swathes of color suggesting grass on the floor. IMHO anyway.
I like how you made the small branches(?) in front stand out with the white.
But idk - you got a pleasant light, airy style in the color/shading + linework of your artwork and this comes through here.
The technical term for this I think is "abstracting," hehe ...
Seems OK to me. To add more depth I think it needs more small trees far off into the distance, or maybe more layers of "leaf blobs," but it's not like you were wanting a high level of detail in the first place. I also think to recreate some of the detail-ish-ness of the source you need deeper color contrasting in the swathes of color suggesting grass on the floor. IMHO anyway.
I like how you made the small branches(?) in front stand out with the white.
But idk - you got a pleasant light, airy style in the color/shading + linework of your artwork and this comes through here.
Looks like my back yard. ^ω^
You say backgrounds give you trouble, but I would say you've done damn good ... Or maybe I just don't have an artistic enough eye to spot flaws. The Watterson-ish style is very alluring, it makes snow look less cold and evil. Haha.
God stuff, mang!
You say backgrounds give you trouble, but I would say you've done damn good ... Or maybe I just don't have an artistic enough eye to spot flaws. The Watterson-ish style is very alluring, it makes snow look less cold and evil. Haha.
God stuff, mang!
I can comfortably tell you that this is in deed exactly what forests look like here in Alaska.
Except this must be in springtime or something, because normally the forests are blanketed in several inches to several feet of snow, depending on where you are in the state, the amount of foliage and branch coverage, the weather on that particular day, what side of the street you're on, and whether or not you asked the forest to look a little prettier before you took the shot.
Except this must be in springtime or something, because normally the forests are blanketed in several inches to several feet of snow, depending on where you are in the state, the amount of foliage and branch coverage, the weather on that particular day, what side of the street you're on, and whether or not you asked the forest to look a little prettier before you took the shot.
Or maybe it's just me ;) You know... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test :)
This is pretty great. I'd recommend putting more of those yellow highlights in the front and decreasing the saturation in the back though, might make it look more like you're looking into a forest than at a canvas.
...the reason I'm saying this is because I know you have the technical skill to accomplish it. It's not as if I could actually paint this. XD
...the reason I'm saying this is because I know you have the technical skill to accomplish it. It's not as if I could actually paint this. XD
FA+

Comments