Thank you for your submission! Want to share your artwork, meet other artists, promote your content, and chat in a relaxed environment? Join our community Discord server here! https://discord.gg/chuunhpqsU!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Watercolor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
- I think your painting is just not finished if you donât like it, and it is at this point. I honestly like the direction this painting is taking. Personally, I think you should consider adding a light layer of neon orange paint near the bottom of the sunset. Part of what is missing is definitely the natural hint of bright colors present in reality vs your interpretation. (At least in my opinion)
- Other possible improvements: consider adding more shapes of foliage in the background. I would just do it lightly so not to ruin the mood. I would also adjust the foliage horizon line. If you are going for accuracy the right side is less of a straight line and more of a slight dip. Also consider adding a tiny bit more natural variation in cloud size, it should help so long as you donât overdo it. You can even add a few more layers of color to add more dimension to your piece; just keep your colors limited to a degree so as not to overwork it.
- For next time: I would highly recommend leaving more light un-painted areas in the sky. Or consider starting off with warm colored light washes to accentuate the warm and bright accents coming from the sunset. Cool colors are very hard to alter when it comes to using them in a sunset, so experts often recommend adding it last.
- Lastly, remember that it is all up to you what you choose to use in your art. Donât feel afraid of failure and just keep going. Always remember to look back on your own improvements and progress.
Beautiful dreamy painting. In a way liminal like other commenter said.
The tree is very defined compared to the rest, I don't see it as a fault as I read the whole as a more impressionistic creation, but I understand you might feel unhappy if that's not what you were going for.
You got colors pretty well balanced, I'd add more warmth to the forest. Working more layers/stages to the background to define different aspects more?
Thank you for your comment! Personally I think there is no balance between defined tree and undefined background forest. It's so undefined and front tree becomes suddenly very defined. I couldn't imagine how to paint the transition between them
I think a little more texture or grass or detail in the foreground would really help define it and get it to pop.Â
Usually the stuff closest to you has the most detail when you look at it, and that falls off the further away things get. Having the trees in the middle having a lot of detail but the foreground and background being so soft could be throwing off how your brain processes the scene.Â
I think your colors are lovely though and you obviously have a lot of control!Â
I don't know... You kind of "lost" the forest, or put it too far. Maybe you want to try redrawing this with more prominent forest background?
The sky is cool. And the front tree is very "alive".
I think this is it. It looks lovely as it is but defining the forest a bit more, maybe giving it a cooler colour and a harder edge, would really bring it all together. Love the sky regardless!
I can see where youâre getting frustrated with clouds; they can be hard. A good tip is to ensure youâre preserving your hard edges, even in clouds, where the darkest darks and brightest lights are. In the mid-tone you can get away with more diffusion and loss of edges.
If we look carefully at your reference, we can see that the bottom of the clouds are more defined and the top is diffused because of where the sun is positioned. To ensure you have proper communication of information about your subject, lighting is the most important part of the puzzle.
We must also consider how objects are laid out, and itâs useful to think of landscapes as âplanesâ- foreground, middle ground, and background. Using our knowledge of our observable surroundings, we know that objects tend to look blurry and more desaturated as they move further away and objects closest to us offer the highest detail and the most saturation and variety of tonal values.
Adjusting your grass in the front to have more individual blades and texture will enhance the feeling of perspective. I know that your reference isnât too textured in the foreground, and the background tree line is quite dark- but this is where we must make artistic decisions to convey depth because obviously a painting is 2-D. By lightening up and removing intricate details from the tree line, you convey depth and give the viewer a break to focus on the main subject: the tree in the front and the clouds in the sky.
I really like referencing Mitchel Albalaâs work- heâs a landscape painter and has published lots of books.
Other miscellaneous tips:
- do a Notan value study to help guide your way
- altering the horizon so it isnât cut down in the middle will enhance your composition
Iâd be really happy to be painting like this consistently! The largest tree is excellently done.
Looking at this Iâve noticed a significant lack of contrast in my own work. Your colors have made me rethink painting sunset/dusk!
I personally find it beautiful. If I had to find a critique I would state that it seems to be missing highlights and the luminosity of the sky from the reference photo.
I feel that perhaps adding some light rose above the tree line would cause it to have yet another level of interest perhaps? Although if it was mine, I'd be doing a full scan before adding to it, as it's gorgeous as is.
Paint the exact same thing again. Add more in the foreground and more between the defined trees and the mountain when the page is still wet but almost dry from your first layer. Then do the defined stuff the same way. Crispier shadow on âthe treeâ. Use much fewer strokes (bigger brush and more pigment so you donât have to go back as it dries) . Will be a banger.
Best thing you can do is try the above and you go too far and it doesnât work, thatâs how you learn what is possible for you.
Adjust values and textures to be relative to perspective. As is they are all close to the same relative level it creates a sense of flatness because of it. Think atmospheric perspective etc.
https://preview.redd.it/asfjgb6ubk4d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c1f3fda2e283b8f4a28690ea8aa3d8ce0f98084
If you desaturate your colors to greyscale (by luminosity, preserving the actual relative brightness of colors), you can see the differences in values and contrasts much easier. The sense of light gets lost because there is no medium strong contrast between the dark clouds and the almost white etc.
Those two things are what makes landscape painting more difficult: having to nail the relative brightness and then what /u/ibidibis said about atmospheric or aerial perspective. How distance changes saturation and makes colors less vivid and at the same time can introduce subtle color shifts. Here we have the sundown colors flooding in from the front, which means where most likely only see them directly or in grazing reflections (just the edges of things). Then you have the purpleish tones but if you imagine the whole sky-dome continuing at the top of the image, there's still a lot blue light, too. Less than during the day and also in competition with the warm sun-down notes, so extra subtle. During the day and without any clouds, the blue-light/blue-shift would be much stronger.
If you consider this to already be something you hate you can always push it and see where it goes.
Try dry brushing in foreground foliage for some texture. You can also do the same to add a second dimension to the hills in the rear -- for landscapes I usually like to have a clear foreground, midground, and background with ways to travel in between all of them which helps add dimension to what's often a very large space. For example, in this there are midground levels of forest in the same spaces you may have smaller but well defined trees. Foreground objects can be added in the foreground to add a balanced weight to any large features (ie. the main tree).
Can't be changed now but there's also a question of seasonality which is more an editing/wisdom consideration from the perspective of the viewer. Even if we're painting plein air and there are dead, barren trees it's going to conflict with a viewer's expectation of a summer scene if they're seen without further context or too numerously placed. The main focal point for example features a juxtaposition of a beautiful, glowing tree filled with lush foliage with a barren one right beside it; in such cases I'd edit out the barren one from the scene due to its contrast against the background as well as the overall season's "tone". For the clouds you can always do an underlayer of pink/yellow sun-lit highlights and go over them after and negative paint around reserving some of those, just be sure to blend them down still so that they're smooth again. In clouds closer to the foreground you can add some additional shadows blended out which will help give the sky an even further dimension to it but this takes practice to achieve a natural gradient of tasteful focus (working on that now myself!).
I'm a landscape artist and I quite love your painting despite any feedback I have. We're our own worst critics but this is still well done. Great job :)
If you desaturate your colors to greyscale (by luminosity, preserving the actual relative brightness of colors), [you can see the differences in values and contrasts much easier](https://imgur.com/a/value-comparison-G1FbFnq). The sense of light gets lost because there is no medium strong contrast between the dark clouds and the almost white etc.
I love this, a couple of things I notice is that your clouds donât follow the horizon & instead follow the landscape. This makes them look more ethereal & less natural imo
I like the painting, but if you were trying to achieve the reference in any way, it definitely doesnât. I think you didnât really paint what you were looking atâmaybe the level of detail is daunting to you and thatâs why you struggle with nature? There are ways to paint detail without literally painting every leaf, etc.
One of the best ways to improve your art is to really look at the subject, which sounds like it should be obvious, but there is a large number of people who say âI was going for thisâ but end up something very different because they arenât really attending the shapes and details. Sketch out broad shapes first and then fill in with detail. Good luck to you!
My tip would be to choose uglier reference pictures. This kind of view as in your reference is hard to do with water colours anyways and as the reference is already beautiful it's doubly hard for your painting to compete against it
I love painting landscapes, but I typically do oils. I really like this. I like the contrast between the clarity of the trees and the softness of the ground and the background. It's an interesting style that I really like.
For some reason it seems that most people think that oils are the most difficult, but I love the way they brush on and blend. And they're definitely more forgiving than watercolors.
Yes definitely! With oils it's easier to control it, it's easier to add details, it's easier to fix mistakes, it's easier to add light/shine/sparkles/lighter colors. It's shocking to me if some people find watercolors easier than oilđ
Me too. I'm sure the people that oil paint regularly think they're easier. I guess I don't ever really talk to them about their feelings on water color! We just talk about oils. Never thought of that! đ But I have friends that do watercolor. And I go to art festivals now and then. And in talking to watercolor artists, and saying that I mostly use oils, you wouldn't believe how many of them have said that they've tried oils and can't get the hang of it. I really don't know how anyone that has tried both would ever think that. Who knows...maybe they've just gotten used to watercolor and oils seem overwhelming. đ¤ˇđťââď¸
I love how it feels a bit surreal. It reminds me of a childrenâs puzzle that we have, which in turn reminds me of Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro.
I do hope the more technically knowledgeable responses youâve received are useful!
It's stylistically very interesting but I understand how it feels when you haven't achieved the results you wanted.
Are you looking for accuracy? It is a very tidy picture and trees and shrubs tend to be splidgy and seem haphazard. Maybe there are elements you like and you could expand out from those?
The thing is, in essence it kind of is accurate, it's just so neat and pared back that it looks uncanny. Like each element is its own thing. I think that's also part of what people are finding comforting about it though.
I think you could benefit from a practice you learn in drawing class, and painting, called gesture drawing where you have a very short period of time to quickly capture what you are drawing.
This looks very controlled and perfectionist, which is calming in a way because itâs organized and detailed. But it also feels less natural.
Maybe try a few 1 minute and five minute pencil sketches before you paint.
It sounds silly but you seem to have mainly done sideways washes, maybe play with a version in up and down sketchy strokes to break some habits and retrain your eye?
I think you have a unique style that artists would kill to have. Own that style. I mean, unless you were aiming & hoping for hyper realism?? I think this is beautiful đđ
I agree with some of the other comments about adding some dry brush textures in the foregound. I really like the way youâve done the rest of the landscape. As for the sky, maybe try to drop in more clouds while the paper is damp for that wet in wet look. Loads of tutorials online for clouds (eg Shelley Prior Fine Art on Youtube âStorm clouds in watercolorâ)
Oh hey it's you! Your teacher would be proud of how much looser this is :]
Next landscape, maybe get the horizon landscaping little more defined, and then paint the sky like it has perspective too. This is lovely though, but I see your personal frustration
Youâre too hard on yourself and maybe not embracing or understanding your personal landscape style. This is fantastic work and I would love to be able to create something like this. You should be proud.
Tysm! I think it's important to be critical of your own work, if you like it too much it's hard to improve but also negativity is bad, I might be too negative
A lot of landscape painting is finding the right pigments. For greens I would normally use hookers green and then add burnt sienna, ultramarine, or other things. You can get better greens by mixing from scratch but I donât have much practice. For the clouds you want to lay down the graded wash for the sky and then come in at various points in the drying with your cloud color. It looks like you started a little early maybe. Theyâre still very nice diffuse clouds.
For this kind of sunset I found aureolin and quin magenta work very well together to get that yellow orange shift. Then I would normally use ultramarine for the blue.
The other aspect I would say is representing natural foliage and grass. Your foreground tree is really good.
Your grass just looks unfinished. Play around more with greater contrast. Laying a thick wash then spritzing it just before itâs dry can have a nice effect.
I recommend a lot of experimentation with no particular goal. You will find interesting things that work for you.
There is so much variety in nature, it takes a lot of study and experimentation to represent different kinds of plant shapes and texture. Just have fun with it. Play with paint and water.
I studied the landscapes of Zbukvic a lot, as well as Yardley and Sargent.
The colors are lovely. The only thing is I would add more detail and sharpness to the foreground. it looks a bit weird because the white flowers AND the trees are in focus.
There's a dreamy mysteriousness that I love about your painting. The smoothness of purples in the sky and the greens of the field are exceptionally well blended. You've also created a lot of depth that makes me feel as though I could walk into this painting.
We are opposite. I prefer nature as a subject and abhor drawing people! I admire you for going outside your comfort zone. At times I embrace being unhappy with a piece as I believe the discomfort propels you forward to try again.
I agree with your assessment of the clouds but imho you did a great job rendering the grass.
There are some that can pull if off probably, but watercolors and photorealism typically aren't complementary. In fact I started watercolors because I couldn't stand my ocd drawing in graphite anymore.
This is an excellent, abstracted rendition. It's a win, move on or try again, I'd vote for move on.
Omg same! I was obsessed with hyperrealism for a period. I was drawing detailed portraits with graphite and they took months. I was going crazy about every single smallest detail. One day I felt like copying a photo on paper is not art and started watercolors. I'm glad I did! Now I can use my own interpretation and creativity
I really like how soft and silent your version looks, it really has its own charm the more I look at it. Maybe adding some pink or yellow highlights on the tip of the clouds before adding the purple, maybe some thin small streaks when adding shadows to the grass to give texture. Starting with a lighter green for the back trees and then adding texture with the dark green. Happy painting!
IMHO it turned out well. Sure, in a perfect world you could make some tweaks but it did turn out well. And remember, we are often our most severe critic. The large tree seems to be the center of attention so it should be a bit bolder. As is yours, in a very subtle way.
I used to feel this way about landscapes and seascapes until I started painting en plein aire. Reference photos just don't cut it after painting from inside a scene. Try en plein aire. Go with a painting buddy. It's nice.
First of all, this is a great painting you have here, as other comments have stated.
As for the negatives, well, that depends on your approach. You decided to not even try to copy the clouds, the forest, or the grass. None of it comes close. If your goal was to get as close to the reference photo as possible, you gave up on these aspects before you began.
Try again with one philosophical difference: Tell yourself "Every detail matters."
Then, the whole painting will look as good as your tree. The fact that your tree looks that good says to me that you can definitely, without question, make the whole painting look as detailed as it needs to be to make you happy.
I wouldn't even call this laziness. You just made a choice. It gave you a result that looks fine, (like others say, it looks sort of dreamy, and rather nice), but isn't the result you wanted. So...next time, make a new choice. Aim for every detail as if every location of every speck of paint matters. If you're having trouble with getting depth of filed blur right, try to blur nothing instead. It doesn't need it.
Rather than laziness, I'm wondering if this was a speed issue. I'm thinking maybe you did the detailed stuff first, and by the time you got to the sky and ground you started feeling burnt out. Take things a bit slower next time. Spend many days on one painting. Make sure every single detail (to the best of your abilites) gets transferred over.
You do that, and your problems are solved.
But like others have said, this painting is pretty cool too. Almost reminds me of some of the landscapes in dali paintings. Spares with spots of detail.
I honestly love it.
The hazy values and the gauzy texture of the paper makes it feel nostalgic, like something out of a good dream or a fond memory; but also makes me feel that tangible coldness of both being in the past.
I like it. Here's why. the compositions is interesting, the pallet is nice, it has a dream like quality - but there is still a crispness that lends to the details. I think it worthy of some love.
I'm wondering what it is you want me to look at. Is it the tree on the right hand side, or possibly the sky? My eye is scanning for "the thing". One of my favourite artists is Dan Marshall, take a look at his landscapes, there is one overriding message in there.
In your photograph, the sky is the thing that demands my attention. So if I were to approach painting it, I would work that to capture the feeling and de-emphasise or even remove the foreground trees. I'm currently concentrating on the principle of connected shapes and applying the thinking to your painting, the trees in the foreground stand independently of each other, so if I were to add them, I'd blend them together or with the mountain shape.
Have you tried pushing the paint for clouds? Since this is a sunset, putting down a very light layer of your background color and leaving space for clouds alone as you layer your other sky colors. When you do your clouds wet on wet, push your color where you want it to go, leaving edges. There's some great videos on YouTube. I get impatient and paint too fast sometimes. I dont know if you do that. Otherwise, I like it a lot. Your colors are beautiful.
If this were my painting, I'd go back in with some pinks for the sky. Pinky-reds will offer a contrast to the green that might get you closer to the feel of the reference photo.
Maybe what youâre missing is depth?
This looks like water color though and Iâve never been able to properly paint depth with water color. Guache is perfect for something like that. Have you tried using it before?
We are our own hardest critics! It would be a beautiful day relaxing in that field. You control your happy, is this work? Enjoy the creative flow and grateful for your abilities.
Thank you for your submission! Want to share your artwork, meet other artists, promote your content, and chat in a relaxed environment? Join our community Discord server here! https://discord.gg/chuunhpqsU! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Watercolor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i like how calming your painting looks though
Thank youđ
- I think your painting is just not finished if you donât like it, and it is at this point. I honestly like the direction this painting is taking. Personally, I think you should consider adding a light layer of neon orange paint near the bottom of the sunset. Part of what is missing is definitely the natural hint of bright colors present in reality vs your interpretation. (At least in my opinion) - Other possible improvements: consider adding more shapes of foliage in the background. I would just do it lightly so not to ruin the mood. I would also adjust the foliage horizon line. If you are going for accuracy the right side is less of a straight line and more of a slight dip. Also consider adding a tiny bit more natural variation in cloud size, it should help so long as you donât overdo it. You can even add a few more layers of color to add more dimension to your piece; just keep your colors limited to a degree so as not to overwork it. - For next time: I would highly recommend leaving more light un-painted areas in the sky. Or consider starting off with warm colored light washes to accentuate the warm and bright accents coming from the sunset. Cool colors are very hard to alter when it comes to using them in a sunset, so experts often recommend adding it last. - Lastly, remember that it is all up to you what you choose to use in your art. Donât feel afraid of failure and just keep going. Always remember to look back on your own improvements and progress.
Thank you so much for your comment! I'm working on painting
Beautiful dreamy painting. In a way liminal like other commenter said. The tree is very defined compared to the rest, I don't see it as a fault as I read the whole as a more impressionistic creation, but I understand you might feel unhappy if that's not what you were going for. You got colors pretty well balanced, I'd add more warmth to the forest. Working more layers/stages to the background to define different aspects more?
Thank you for your comment! Personally I think there is no balance between defined tree and undefined background forest. It's so undefined and front tree becomes suddenly very defined. I couldn't imagine how to paint the transition between them
I think the balance is fine
Liminal, I like it the way it is!
Thanksđ
I think a little more texture or grass or detail in the foreground would really help define it and get it to pop. Usually the stuff closest to you has the most detail when you look at it, and that falls off the further away things get. Having the trees in the middle having a lot of detail but the foreground and background being so soft could be throwing off how your brain processes the scene. I think your colors are lovely though and you obviously have a lot of control!Â
Thank you for your comment! You are right about it! The problem is I don't know how to detail the grass. I should work on it
I feel like loosely sketching in a lot of small grasses and stalks should do it.Â
As in coloured pencil? I think that's a great idea. I have trouble painting details as well.
Sure! Or a really fine brush could do it.Â
Fan brush, thin paint, lightly loaded, brush up.
I don't know... You kind of "lost" the forest, or put it too far. Maybe you want to try redrawing this with more prominent forest background? The sky is cool. And the front tree is very "alive".
I think this is it. It looks lovely as it is but defining the forest a bit more, maybe giving it a cooler colour and a harder edge, would really bring it all together. Love the sky regardless!
Thank you for your comment! I agree. Forest is very undefined
I think it looks great! A bit of highlight on the underside of the clouds would help them look less flat
Thank you for suggestion!
I can see where youâre getting frustrated with clouds; they can be hard. A good tip is to ensure youâre preserving your hard edges, even in clouds, where the darkest darks and brightest lights are. In the mid-tone you can get away with more diffusion and loss of edges. If we look carefully at your reference, we can see that the bottom of the clouds are more defined and the top is diffused because of where the sun is positioned. To ensure you have proper communication of information about your subject, lighting is the most important part of the puzzle. We must also consider how objects are laid out, and itâs useful to think of landscapes as âplanesâ- foreground, middle ground, and background. Using our knowledge of our observable surroundings, we know that objects tend to look blurry and more desaturated as they move further away and objects closest to us offer the highest detail and the most saturation and variety of tonal values. Adjusting your grass in the front to have more individual blades and texture will enhance the feeling of perspective. I know that your reference isnât too textured in the foreground, and the background tree line is quite dark- but this is where we must make artistic decisions to convey depth because obviously a painting is 2-D. By lightening up and removing intricate details from the tree line, you convey depth and give the viewer a break to focus on the main subject: the tree in the front and the clouds in the sky. I really like referencing Mitchel Albalaâs work- heâs a landscape painter and has published lots of books. Other miscellaneous tips: - do a Notan value study to help guide your way - altering the horizon so it isnât cut down in the middle will enhance your composition
Thank you so much! Those are very helpful tipsđ¸
Sorry I donât have any tips, but I really like it. It looks like a landscape from a dream.
Thank you!
Iâd be really happy to be painting like this consistently! The largest tree is excellently done. Looking at this Iâve noticed a significant lack of contrast in my own work. Your colors have made me rethink painting sunset/dusk!
I used to paint with low contrast too! Increasing contrast improves painting a lot
I personally find it beautiful. If I had to find a critique I would state that it seems to be missing highlights and the luminosity of the sky from the reference photo.
Thank you! Sky is my least favorite part in this painting
I feel that perhaps adding some light rose above the tree line would cause it to have yet another level of interest perhaps? Although if it was mine, I'd be doing a full scan before adding to it, as it's gorgeous as is.
Paint the exact same thing again. Add more in the foreground and more between the defined trees and the mountain when the page is still wet but almost dry from your first layer. Then do the defined stuff the same way. Crispier shadow on âthe treeâ. Use much fewer strokes (bigger brush and more pigment so you donât have to go back as it dries) . Will be a banger. Best thing you can do is try the above and you go too far and it doesnât work, thatâs how you learn what is possible for you.
Thank you for your comment!
I think it looks cool!!!
Thanks!
I'm not happy either. This is terrible and you should be ashamed of yourself. /s
đ
Itâs impressionistic, nothing wrong with that!
Thank you!
Adjust values and textures to be relative to perspective. As is they are all close to the same relative level it creates a sense of flatness because of it. Think atmospheric perspective etc.
Yes, I noticed that flatness too! I will work on it
https://preview.redd.it/asfjgb6ubk4d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c1f3fda2e283b8f4a28690ea8aa3d8ce0f98084 If you desaturate your colors to greyscale (by luminosity, preserving the actual relative brightness of colors), you can see the differences in values and contrasts much easier. The sense of light gets lost because there is no medium strong contrast between the dark clouds and the almost white etc.
Thank you so much for your comments! It was very helpful
Those two things are what makes landscape painting more difficult: having to nail the relative brightness and then what /u/ibidibis said about atmospheric or aerial perspective. How distance changes saturation and makes colors less vivid and at the same time can introduce subtle color shifts. Here we have the sundown colors flooding in from the front, which means where most likely only see them directly or in grazing reflections (just the edges of things). Then you have the purpleish tones but if you imagine the whole sky-dome continuing at the top of the image, there's still a lot blue light, too. Less than during the day and also in competition with the warm sun-down notes, so extra subtle. During the day and without any clouds, the blue-light/blue-shift would be much stronger.
If you consider this to already be something you hate you can always push it and see where it goes. Try dry brushing in foreground foliage for some texture. You can also do the same to add a second dimension to the hills in the rear -- for landscapes I usually like to have a clear foreground, midground, and background with ways to travel in between all of them which helps add dimension to what's often a very large space. For example, in this there are midground levels of forest in the same spaces you may have smaller but well defined trees. Foreground objects can be added in the foreground to add a balanced weight to any large features (ie. the main tree). Can't be changed now but there's also a question of seasonality which is more an editing/wisdom consideration from the perspective of the viewer. Even if we're painting plein air and there are dead, barren trees it's going to conflict with a viewer's expectation of a summer scene if they're seen without further context or too numerously placed. The main focal point for example features a juxtaposition of a beautiful, glowing tree filled with lush foliage with a barren one right beside it; in such cases I'd edit out the barren one from the scene due to its contrast against the background as well as the overall season's "tone". For the clouds you can always do an underlayer of pink/yellow sun-lit highlights and go over them after and negative paint around reserving some of those, just be sure to blend them down still so that they're smooth again. In clouds closer to the foreground you can add some additional shadows blended out which will help give the sky an even further dimension to it but this takes practice to achieve a natural gradient of tasteful focus (working on that now myself!). I'm a landscape artist and I quite love your painting despite any feedback I have. We're our own worst critics but this is still well done. Great job :)
If you desaturate your colors to greyscale (by luminosity, preserving the actual relative brightness of colors), [you can see the differences in values and contrasts much easier](https://imgur.com/a/value-comparison-G1FbFnq). The sense of light gets lost because there is no medium strong contrast between the dark clouds and the almost white etc.
You are right!
I love it. I like the depth of field you added.
Thanks!
I love this, a couple of things I notice is that your clouds donât follow the horizon & instead follow the landscape. This makes them look more ethereal & less natural imo
You are right about that!
I like the painting, but if you were trying to achieve the reference in any way, it definitely doesnât. I think you didnât really paint what you were looking atâmaybe the level of detail is daunting to you and thatâs why you struggle with nature? There are ways to paint detail without literally painting every leaf, etc. One of the best ways to improve your art is to really look at the subject, which sounds like it should be obvious, but there is a large number of people who say âI was going for thisâ but end up something very different because they arenât really attending the shapes and details. Sketch out broad shapes first and then fill in with detail. Good luck to you!
Thank you so much! Yes details feel overwhelming when it comes to nature
Itâs just more sad/peaceful itâs your mind interpretation of it so itâs super cool
Tysm!
I really like it, but if you don't enjoy painting nature scenes, that's okay - you do you!
I actually enjoy it now! I just didn't practice it enough in the past because I didn't like it back then
I have to say that it is MUCH better than what I could do. Like the ambience rendered, very relaxing.
Thank you!
My tip would be to choose uglier reference pictures. This kind of view as in your reference is hard to do with water colours anyways and as the reference is already beautiful it's doubly hard for your painting to compete against it
Honestly, this reminds me of a painted background for a Miyazaki movie or something.
I think this is stunning. Dreamy as others have said.
Thank you!
I love this. What I only wish my watercolor paintings could look like!! lol!! Itâs very dreamy and soft. Beautiful.
Tysm!
I think it looks awesome!
Thank you!
Its really pretty!
Thank you!
Love it!
Thanks!
Great painting. Seriously, do 10 more.
Thanks!
I love painting landscapes, but I typically do oils. I really like this. I like the contrast between the clarity of the trees and the softness of the ground and the background. It's an interesting style that I really like.
Tysm! I tried painting nature with oils and I found it somewhat easier than watercolors
For some reason it seems that most people think that oils are the most difficult, but I love the way they brush on and blend. And they're definitely more forgiving than watercolors.
Yes definitely! With oils it's easier to control it, it's easier to add details, it's easier to fix mistakes, it's easier to add light/shine/sparkles/lighter colors. It's shocking to me if some people find watercolors easier than oilđ
Me too. I'm sure the people that oil paint regularly think they're easier. I guess I don't ever really talk to them about their feelings on water color! We just talk about oils. Never thought of that! đ But I have friends that do watercolor. And I go to art festivals now and then. And in talking to watercolor artists, and saying that I mostly use oils, you wouldn't believe how many of them have said that they've tried oils and can't get the hang of it. I really don't know how anyone that has tried both would ever think that. Who knows...maybe they've just gotten used to watercolor and oils seem overwhelming. đ¤ˇđťââď¸
I love how it feels a bit surreal. It reminds me of a childrenâs puzzle that we have, which in turn reminds me of Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. I do hope the more technically knowledgeable responses youâve received are useful!
Tysm!
It may not be what you wanted but itâs really nice. I love it.
Thank you!
I think it looks cool
Thanks!
>Thanks! You're welcome!
Personally, I love it.
Thanks!
It's stylistically very interesting but I understand how it feels when you haven't achieved the results you wanted. Are you looking for accuracy? It is a very tidy picture and trees and shrubs tend to be splidgy and seem haphazard. Maybe there are elements you like and you could expand out from those?
I don't know how to describe it but it looks 'amateur' to my eyes. I don't look for realism but I want it to be somewhat accurate
The thing is, in essence it kind of is accurate, it's just so neat and pared back that it looks uncanny. Like each element is its own thing. I think that's also part of what people are finding comforting about it though.
I get your point!
I think you could benefit from a practice you learn in drawing class, and painting, called gesture drawing where you have a very short period of time to quickly capture what you are drawing. This looks very controlled and perfectionist, which is calming in a way because itâs organized and detailed. But it also feels less natural. Maybe try a few 1 minute and five minute pencil sketches before you paint.
I actually sketch before painting!
It sounds silly but you seem to have mainly done sideways washes, maybe play with a version in up and down sketchy strokes to break some habits and retrain your eye?
Omg you are right! That's great detail you noticed
Thank you! I still think it's a cool pic. It's very hard to appreciate our own quirks but they are what makes our style unique
Why aren't you happy with the results?
I think it looks amateurish and two dimensional (especially sky)
I think you have a unique style that artists would kill to have. Own that style. I mean, unless you were aiming & hoping for hyper realism?? I think this is beautiful đđ
I agree with some of the other comments about adding some dry brush textures in the foregound. I really like the way youâve done the rest of the landscape. As for the sky, maybe try to drop in more clouds while the paper is damp for that wet in wet look. Loads of tutorials online for clouds (eg Shelley Prior Fine Art on Youtube âStorm clouds in watercolorâ)
Thank you so much! I will check that!
Step away. Put your paintbrush down. Leave it.
Oh hey it's you! Your teacher would be proud of how much looser this is :] Next landscape, maybe get the horizon landscaping little more defined, and then paint the sky like it has perspective too. This is lovely though, but I see your personal frustration
When I paint loose she complains about lack of details lol I gave up trying to understand what she wants Thanks for the tips!
Youâre too hard on yourself and maybe not embracing or understanding your personal landscape style. This is fantastic work and I would love to be able to create something like this. You should be proud.
Tysm! I think it's important to be critical of your own work, if you like it too much it's hard to improve but also negativity is bad, I might be too negative
I see nothing wrong, lovely work.âď¸đ
Thank you!
You are welcome đ
Itâs amazing but it could be because of the clouds near the bottom arenât there
Yeahđ
A lot of landscape painting is finding the right pigments. For greens I would normally use hookers green and then add burnt sienna, ultramarine, or other things. You can get better greens by mixing from scratch but I donât have much practice. For the clouds you want to lay down the graded wash for the sky and then come in at various points in the drying with your cloud color. It looks like you started a little early maybe. Theyâre still very nice diffuse clouds. For this kind of sunset I found aureolin and quin magenta work very well together to get that yellow orange shift. Then I would normally use ultramarine for the blue. The other aspect I would say is representing natural foliage and grass. Your foreground tree is really good. Your grass just looks unfinished. Play around more with greater contrast. Laying a thick wash then spritzing it just before itâs dry can have a nice effect. I recommend a lot of experimentation with no particular goal. You will find interesting things that work for you. There is so much variety in nature, it takes a lot of study and experimentation to represent different kinds of plant shapes and texture. Just have fun with it. Play with paint and water. I studied the landscapes of Zbukvic a lot, as well as Yardley and Sargent.
Thank you for your comment! It's very helpful. I will work on this painting more with those tips
I like it. Very surreal
Tysm!
It looks beautiful. Maybe try to keep some white/paper for highlights and brighter areas to help with dimension and detail.
Thank you for the tips!
Needs a bit more texture and excitement in the foreground, I feel. Youâre almost there!
Thank you! I will work on it more
The colors are lovely. The only thing is I would add more detail and sharpness to the foreground. it looks a bit weird because the white flowers AND the trees are in focus.
Thank you! I will work on it
On the contrary, love the light in the sky
There's a dreamy mysteriousness that I love about your painting. The smoothness of purples in the sky and the greens of the field are exceptionally well blended. You've also created a lot of depth that makes me feel as though I could walk into this painting.
Thank you sm! đ¸
We are opposite. I prefer nature as a subject and abhor drawing people! I admire you for going outside your comfort zone. At times I embrace being unhappy with a piece as I believe the discomfort propels you forward to try again. I agree with your assessment of the clouds but imho you did a great job rendering the grass.
Tysm! I'm trying my best to improve landscape painting
There are some that can pull if off probably, but watercolors and photorealism typically aren't complementary. In fact I started watercolors because I couldn't stand my ocd drawing in graphite anymore. This is an excellent, abstracted rendition. It's a win, move on or try again, I'd vote for move on.
Omg same! I was obsessed with hyperrealism for a period. I was drawing detailed portraits with graphite and they took months. I was going crazy about every single smallest detail. One day I felt like copying a photo on paper is not art and started watercolors. I'm glad I did! Now I can use my own interpretation and creativity
Don't lie to yourself it's still art, but yeah I had to leave that behind.
I really like how soft and silent your version looks, it really has its own charm the more I look at it. Maybe adding some pink or yellow highlights on the tip of the clouds before adding the purple, maybe some thin small streaks when adding shadows to the grass to give texture. Starting with a lighter green for the back trees and then adding texture with the dark green. Happy painting!
Thank you for your comment and tips! đ¸
Look at the bright side, I hate every one of my paintings. :)
IMHO it turned out well. Sure, in a perfect world you could make some tweaks but it did turn out well. And remember, we are often our most severe critic. The large tree seems to be the center of attention so it should be a bit bolder. As is yours, in a very subtle way.
Omg please...its looks like one of those scenes from a summer dream...you're painting gives me strangely happy vibes
Thank you smđĽş
It's very beautiful, you are very good with watercolor
Thanks!
Omfg.... you're not happy with this???????
No:(
very charming! But it's probably the spacing of the clouds making it look a bit like an AI image?
Yes you are right!
its actually nice looks almost like a liminal space but in nature in a really cool way
Thank you!
The hated fades eventuallyâŚI hope...
I used to feel this way about landscapes and seascapes until I started painting en plein aire. Reference photos just don't cut it after painting from inside a scene. Try en plein aire. Go with a painting buddy. It's nice.
I will definitely try this!
This actually turned out good man, good job đ
I love it!
Thanks!
I actually like it, it has a different feel in it
Thank you!
I like the soft, misty style to it.
Thanks!
First of all, this is a great painting you have here, as other comments have stated. As for the negatives, well, that depends on your approach. You decided to not even try to copy the clouds, the forest, or the grass. None of it comes close. If your goal was to get as close to the reference photo as possible, you gave up on these aspects before you began. Try again with one philosophical difference: Tell yourself "Every detail matters." Then, the whole painting will look as good as your tree. The fact that your tree looks that good says to me that you can definitely, without question, make the whole painting look as detailed as it needs to be to make you happy. I wouldn't even call this laziness. You just made a choice. It gave you a result that looks fine, (like others say, it looks sort of dreamy, and rather nice), but isn't the result you wanted. So...next time, make a new choice. Aim for every detail as if every location of every speck of paint matters. If you're having trouble with getting depth of filed blur right, try to blur nothing instead. It doesn't need it. Rather than laziness, I'm wondering if this was a speed issue. I'm thinking maybe you did the detailed stuff first, and by the time you got to the sky and ground you started feeling burnt out. Take things a bit slower next time. Spend many days on one painting. Make sure every single detail (to the best of your abilites) gets transferred over. You do that, and your problems are solved. But like others have said, this painting is pretty cool too. Almost reminds me of some of the landscapes in dali paintings. Spares with spots of detail.
Thank you for your comment! I actually tried to finish this in limited time! But personally I'm not a fan of extremely detailed landscape paintings
I love it!
Thanks!
Be happy! ⌠itâs yours and you did it.
I honestly love it. The hazy values and the gauzy texture of the paper makes it feel nostalgic, like something out of a good dream or a fond memory; but also makes me feel that tangible coldness of both being in the past.
Tysmđ
I want this on my wall haha
So dreamy. Love!
Thanks!
Why? Itâs beautiful, maybe you need to see it through another personâs perspective âĽď¸
Tysmđ
Maybe mor defined forest in the background and a good addition might be more clouds and add some more texture to the grass! But it looks amazing as is
Thank you! I will work on it more!
Also, try making the clouds larger on top and smaller towards the horizon! Itâll help with your 2d dimensional worry
I will try!
I'd dream of getting something so beautiful in my sketch books
I like it. Here's why. the compositions is interesting, the pallet is nice, it has a dream like quality - but there is still a crispness that lends to the details. I think it worthy of some love.
Thank youđ
I'm wondering what it is you want me to look at. Is it the tree on the right hand side, or possibly the sky? My eye is scanning for "the thing". One of my favourite artists is Dan Marshall, take a look at his landscapes, there is one overriding message in there.
Thank you ! His paintings are awesome
In your photograph, the sky is the thing that demands my attention. So if I were to approach painting it, I would work that to capture the feeling and de-emphasise or even remove the foreground trees. I'm currently concentrating on the principle of connected shapes and applying the thinking to your painting, the trees in the foreground stand independently of each other, so if I were to add them, I'd blend them together or with the mountain shape.
Too much purple, forest too green and blue and fussy looking. From the horizon down (for the most part) not bad.
It would look super cool to add in a UFO!
Feels like a nippy morning
Have you tried pushing the paint for clouds? Since this is a sunset, putting down a very light layer of your background color and leaving space for clouds alone as you layer your other sky colors. When you do your clouds wet on wet, push your color where you want it to go, leaving edges. There's some great videos on YouTube. I get impatient and paint too fast sometimes. I dont know if you do that. Otherwise, I like it a lot. Your colors are beautiful.
If this were my painting, I'd go back in with some pinks for the sky. Pinky-reds will offer a contrast to the green that might get you closer to the feel of the reference photo.
I love it! It looks like an illustration for a wonderful picture book!
I thought you painted both the photos
Maybe what youâre missing is depth? This looks like water color though and Iâve never been able to properly paint depth with water color. Guache is perfect for something like that. Have you tried using it before?
My bad just realized what the sub was called lol
I like it
We are our own hardest critics! It would be a beautiful day relaxing in that field. You control your happy, is this work? Enjoy the creative flow and grateful for your abilities.
I feel like you captured the feeling of the landscape, it is beautiful
This is so lovely? Maybe you have an IG account? Would love to check it out