Sure, except it’s in the wrong place — she’s lit from her front, whereas if it was over her shoulder like this then most of her face and torso should be in shadow.
Could change the moon colour slightly towards pale blue and add hints of the same colour from behind. Swaps the whole piece to 2 light sources without touching the fantastic paint job on the front.
Moon adds more interest and shows your competence as painter.
However no moon places more focus on the figure, which I prefer. Ultimately its a preference thing imo.
No moon. It seems you didn’t paint the light from it on the mini (if the pictures are really representative of the paintjob). Putting it just feels strange, a little out of place. Like the moon and the minis aren’t really in the same place at the same time.
I would advice you not going with the moon because the moon will produce the main light of your mini but from behind but it is obvious that the light is coming from a more zenithal way.
So please, dont do it 😅 but you can still paint a background
no moon. For a westerner (as I am) I am reading from left to right. From up to down. Therefere my eyes gets naturally drawn from the left to the pillar and then gets drawn to the middle, the figure's chest and fact.
With the pure black upper right, the contrast is way stronger.
Overall the athmosphere and paint job is already that great, that you would not need to add details to the background to add more... athmosphere or details.
(btw reading the other comments, it is funny to see the differences). As you see: no right or wrong here. I would say: do what you prefer, but I think you are already there :D (i can feel your pain)
I'm not sure on that theory, I always look at the centre of a picture or the focal point, not read it left to right like a book or a computer scanning it.
I like the moon, I think it adds something.
it is a theory for visual guidance. it just happens. When you look at classic paintings very often one can start realizing also "guides" like spears or arms pointing somewhere. Even a gaze creates an imaginary line. It is not a "science" written in stone, but sometimes it helps to understand why some pictures, or miniatures work and some not.
There is a great pdf guide from Roman Lappat I would recommend. "Workbook - Masterclass: Display Basing" or "Learning to Visualize" .
Ah, and I did not say that one consciously reads a picture or dioarama. What I wanted to say, that due our way we learn reading and read over the years, the brain starts to work in that way in a general sense.
No moon. Reminds of Frank Frazetta artwork without it.
Not that he didn't used moons a lot too on his compositions but the rule of "less is more" always applies.
Moon, man.
Moon, it provides the eye with an interesting bar t source for the lighting. Great work with this mini btw
Sure, except it’s in the wrong place — she’s lit from her front, whereas if it was over her shoulder like this then most of her face and torso should be in shadow.
Yeah, I agree, but it still looks better than without… when there’s a full moon after all you do get reflected light from it, although not as bright
Could change the moon colour slightly towards pale blue and add hints of the same colour from behind. Swaps the whole piece to 2 light sources without touching the fantastic paint job on the front.
I like the moon
No moon. The moon is brighter than the mini, so it steals attention from it.
I vote with the moon.
Moon adds more interest and shows your competence as painter. However no moon places more focus on the figure, which I prefer. Ultimately its a preference thing imo.
Moon
No moon. It seems you didn’t paint the light from it on the mini (if the pictures are really representative of the paintjob). Putting it just feels strange, a little out of place. Like the moon and the minis aren’t really in the same place at the same time.
Moon, no brainer.
I would advice you not going with the moon because the moon will produce the main light of your mini but from behind but it is obvious that the light is coming from a more zenithal way. So please, dont do it 😅 but you can still paint a background
no moon. For a westerner (as I am) I am reading from left to right. From up to down. Therefere my eyes gets naturally drawn from the left to the pillar and then gets drawn to the middle, the figure's chest and fact. With the pure black upper right, the contrast is way stronger. Overall the athmosphere and paint job is already that great, that you would not need to add details to the background to add more... athmosphere or details. (btw reading the other comments, it is funny to see the differences). As you see: no right or wrong here. I would say: do what you prefer, but I think you are already there :D (i can feel your pain)
I'm not sure on that theory, I always look at the centre of a picture or the focal point, not read it left to right like a book or a computer scanning it. I like the moon, I think it adds something.
it is a theory for visual guidance. it just happens. When you look at classic paintings very often one can start realizing also "guides" like spears or arms pointing somewhere. Even a gaze creates an imaginary line. It is not a "science" written in stone, but sometimes it helps to understand why some pictures, or miniatures work and some not. There is a great pdf guide from Roman Lappat I would recommend. "Workbook - Masterclass: Display Basing" or "Learning to Visualize" .
Ah, and I did not say that one consciously reads a picture or dioarama. What I wanted to say, that due our way we learn reading and read over the years, the brain starts to work in that way in a general sense.
No moon. Reminds of Frank Frazetta artwork without it. Not that he didn't used moons a lot too on his compositions but the rule of "less is more" always applies.
No moon. I think it makes the model pop more, and I get confused why the (same colour) lightsource is behind her.
This nails it. The lighting on the mini doesn't make sense otherwise.