| |
Community
Magazines
Book Clubs
Book Stores
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Artists Network
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
JoyK
Posts:196
 |
| 08/14/2007 1:59 PM |
 Alert
|
| I like to paint birds, but am never sure about the background. The summer tanager was done several years ago. I did the spoonbill this year, but am not real happy with the background. Any criticism or suggestions are greatly appreciated. And does anyone know how to use the emoticons? I'm using a Mac and when I click on them, the wording only appears. Do I have to enclose them in brackets and they will be converted? |
|
JOY
Cogito ergo sum. |
|
JoyK
Posts:196
|
| 08/14/2007 2:02 PM |
Alert
|
I enclosed my title in the bold symbols, but it didn't come out properly. Can one only get these effects with the "quick reply"?
|
|
JOY
Cogito ergo sum. |
|
gene
Posts:1246
|
| 08/14/2007 3:20 PM |
Alert
|
| I have a comment about your paintings. I think I notice that your paper is buckling an awful lot. My suggestion is that you use only good quality paper. If you are already doing that, then I also would suggest that you stretch your paper and staple it to your board while it is wet. Let it dry thorougly overnight and it should dry completely smooth without any ripples. If I am just not seeing these right, and they are not rippling, please ignore my comments. I particularly like the little bird in the second painting. I wish I could help you with your emoticons, but can't. Gene |
|
|
|
JoyK
Posts:196
|
| 08/15/2007 1:48 PM |
Alert
|
| Thanks Gene!! I'm using Arches 140#, and stretching it. These paintings look buckled because they aren't framed. They are smooth when I stretch them, but get "ripply" when I paint. I laid mats over the edges, so they are not laying completely flat. The colors of the tanager are brighter than they appear. The help I receive here is GREATLY appreciated. |
|
JOY
Cogito ergo sum. |
|
kate_hamilton
Posts:34
|
| 08/15/2007 4:58 PM |
Alert
|
Hi Joy,
These are beautiful! Birds are tricky because their anatomy is so different from our own, and other animals. You've done a nice job getting that part down.
As far as backgrounds, I think the simpler the better when it comes to birds. When you look at a bird you are focusing on something that is usually very small in comparison to its surroundings. You can't possibly focus on a bird and see all the details of its surroundings at the same time. The depth of field is too great.
One of my favorite bird photographers is Arthur Morris. http://birdsasart.com/
He takes great pains to make the bird the focal point, and have the background be more for atmosphere than anything else (at least that's what I get from reading his book). Actually, his book would be a great read for you because it explains some of the difficulties of composition and capturing character with birds who can be rather elusive. It will also help you photograph your own birds, creating great reference for yourself.
Here's a bird painting I did 2 years ago, from a photo taken of a yellow-crowned night heron.
The painting was done almost entirely wet-on-wet, with the background trees being the soppiest part of the painting. By the time I got to the foreground tree they were just damp, and I laid the greens into that, letting it bleed a bit, keeping it transparent. Then I put all my detail work into the bird (still damp). The bird itself is the only true-to-subject part of the painting. My attempt at keeping him the focal point in a rather complicated leafy setting.
So perhaps for your summer tanager, a wash of wet-on-wet greens/dappled light would tell more of a story than the lightly tinted background. You've solved it well with the spoonbill--he's in his natural setting, without the setting overwhelming the bird. Perhaps a little sharper highlight here and there on the surface around his legs would give you the extra something you're looking for. A sparkle of light to compliment his own whiteness. Another thing to consider when painting a bird like the spoonbill, whos most prominent feature, in this case, is a rose colored beak--that beak will be even more prominent and exciting if it is the only true rose color in the painting. Had you stayed a little bluer in the background, rather than the vibrant rose, his beak would really "pop", and hold the eye.
But they are both very well executed! It's a tough subject! Post more birds soon! And thanks for commenting on my portrait painting...  |
|
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Kate Hamilton
Winter Park, CO
Web: http://penguinart.com
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/katehamilton/ |
|
JoyK
Posts:196
|
| 08/23/2007 3:29 PM |
Alert
|
| Thanks for the help- I know I need to simplify the background. Overworking is a real problem of mine. I also strive to develop a style. I'm going to start a post on that! |
|
JOY
Cogito ergo sum. |
|
sandeep.khedkar
Posts:439
|
| 08/24/2007 2:53 AM |
Alert
|
Hi JoyK
I like the second bird. In the first one, I think the the values are disctinctly separated as very dark to very light. Seems to make the painting split into two parts. You could evaluate making the background more lighter and also use a combination of hard and soft edges for the birds body.
There were some posts on Watercolor forum on "Chikadees" You could take a look at them to see how the subject is simplified.
Sandeep |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|