PDA

View Full Version : Creating depth in a predominantly opaque painting?


Henrikg
06-24-2006, 03:08 PM
Ok , I`m always considering linear and atmospheric perspektive when I paint. Lighter tones, less definition and cooler colors in the backround , warmer coolors and more teksture\ definition in the foreground. Yet I`m not able to attain the degree off depth that I want when I`m painting with an opaque technique - traditional and digital... Am I missing something?

I have most experience as a traditional watercolorist. In my opinion you can more easily get the kind of depth that I want when I paint with a transparent technique, making the tones in the backround the lightest and darkening them towards the foreground.
With light tones alot of the white of the paper will shine thru, and I think my problem with painting opaque is that I try to make the tones in the backround transparent, adding no white to the paint because this ,I feel , will make them more " solid \foregroundish" but as a result my backround colors tend to be pretty saturated.

How do you develop your picture to get the most depth. Do you add white to backround colors , and paint them as opaque as the forground, or do you paint transparent in the backround,adding no white?Or a combination? Maybe I have answered my own question, but I am a bit confused..

Tips and tricks on how to create depth in a painting??

Lunatique
06-25-2006, 05:49 PM
This is something I sometimes have problems with also. I think it's simply that we need to experiment more and find the right ratios of low contrast, color temperature shift, lower saturation, less detail..etc. Look at artists who are good at it (Craig Mullins for example) and study what it is they're doing differently from us. None of this has much to do with opaque or transparent or adding white--it's simply about the background having less contrast, lower saturation, less detail..etc. Are you painting digitally? If you are, then don't think in terms of "adding white" because the traditional way of thinking doesn't work too well with digital color picking. Try thinking more in terms of hue, saturation, and value.

Henrikg
06-26-2006, 06:12 PM
Thanks for the reply!
And yes I am painting digitally. Although I just recently did the " switch".I`m havening some trouble " letting go" off some of the traditional ways of thinking when it comes to color and mixing. I think you are totaly right about the fact that we should probably experiment more. And I`ll definitaly check out Craig Mullins work.

dbclemons
06-28-2006, 02:46 PM
There's no need to "let go" of traditional methods in this regard. The principles are not mutually exclusive.

Many landscape painters, in order to achieve a sense of distance in their imagery, use not only a control of atmosphere, but also depth of field or focus. Color temperature can be useful, but often is too restrictive, and not that necessary. If you look at the large epic painters, like Thomas Moran, they use more elements of atmosphere, detail, and scale. The distant objects are usually painted more loosely with less defined edges, and foreground objects are more distinct. In close quarters, focus can also help direct the eye, but creates a photographic or artificial appearance.

Look at this painting by John Otis Adams (http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/detail.php?ID=19291). The sky and farthest mountain almost blend together in color and tone. The mid-ground buildings have edges that are fractured and less distinct than the foreground trees whose edges are sharp and crisp.

Here's a grouping of Thomas Moran (http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/by_artist.php?id=435&msg=new) scenes. Love this guy's work.

CGTalk Moderation
06-28-2006, 02:46 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.