That cafe painting is finished

[abcdefz]

...more or less. At least, I'm through working on it for now, I think. Maybe some of you folks can help me know what's just not working for you and I can try to fix it.



http://www.godinaction.org/dwyer-cafe-study.jpg

[robofoo76]

Good work! (y)

[Teh]

I think it's rather guid (y)
Although its hard to see because of the blinding sunlight :mad:

[abcdefz]

That's a slightly out-of-focus elbow and forearm. :o

[Johanna]

that's a great paintimg! teach how to become an artist!!!

[abcdefz]

Glad you fixed the hair. (y)



Thanks for pointing it out to me. Once you showed me, I was pretty horrified.

I should have brought it down farther, but then I would've had to redo the top hairline altogether, and I was getting pretty tired of this one now.

[abcdefz]

I think it's rather guid (y)
Although its hard to see because of the blinding sunlight :mad:



..on your monitor, or the the light blasting in the painting's window? :D

[abcdefz]

You guys are kind. To me, this is about a C+ painting. I need to get some actual instruction and acquire a handsome set of skills.




that's a great paintimg! teach how to become an artist!!!



Just do it. (y)

[abcdefz]

Actually I cant take credit for that...it was Heiress that pointed it out. I noticed it too, and then I saw her point it out so I figured why beat a dead horse. It looks good tho!


That's right!


Sorry -- everyone with hair looks alike to me. ;)

[P of R]

Great job, friend. (y)

[Johanna]

A+++

[abcdefz]

Show me an A+ one.



I don't have an A+ one.

I think Transit Rider is in the B+/A- territory.


http://www.godinaction.org/dwyer-transit-rider.jpg

[ProfJIM]

the fixing of the hair made this an A

good job

you get 5 gold stars

[abcdefz]

I'm sure that I spend so much time fixing the parts that are wrong that I focus on them a bit much.

But in the new one, I didn't really nail the sort of shimmer that you get when sun's coming in the window, and you can just make out a building through the blinds. It looks muddled.

Also, the elbow in the frame thing was the challenge here; I think I pulled it off as well as I could without cheating (adding a sleeve, a bracelet, a tattoo, etc., to telegraph exactly what it is that's out of focus).

The man's hair in the background is a blob rather than a distinct hairsyle.

The woman's face is supposed to be dark, but I'd still like a little more cheekbone and if I'd really gotten her lips right, it would have been a bit more expressive.

Etc. :D

[lethal_apricot]

Mate you are so bloody talented theyre both top notch.

Kind of style I like too.

You're kind of thinking what their mood is what theyre thinking, etc.

[Teh]

..on your monitor, or the the light blasting in the painting's window? :D

On my monitor. There's no curtains in this room and the window is hugeee!

[Teh]

I don't have an A+ one.

I think Transit Rider is in the B+/A- territory.


http://www.godinaction.org/dwyer-transit-rider.jpg

The texture of the jacket is perfect!
I'd say that was easily borderline A+

I wish there was a humourous spin off of "It'd hit it", but instead, "I'd buy it!"

[miss soul fire]

...more or less. At least, I'm through working on it for now, I think. Maybe some of you folks can help me know what's just not working for you and I can try to fix it.



http://www.godinaction.org/dwyer-cafe-study.jpg
It looks great!

[abcdefz]

Mate you are so bloody talented theyre both top notch.

Kind of style I like too.

You're kind of thinking what their mood is what theyre thinking, etc.



That's the sort of thing I'm shooting for in this series -- evocative images in that way. Thanks for spotting it. (y)




I don't want to be derivative or anything, but Edward Hopper's stuff (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/hopper/interior/) is a big influence. He was absolutely AMAZING with light, but his figures were sometimes a bit off...

[ProfJIM]

the arm matches the wall on the other side of the pic, maybe you should tone down the colour of that arm a bit

it'd probably be eaiser to change the wall

[abcdefz]

the arm matches the wall on the other side of the pic, maybe you should tone down the colour of that arm a bit


it'd probably be eaiser to change the wall



...this is one of those things where the colors are off just enough in the image that it looks that way; in real life, the wall and arm are distinctly different colrs; it's just that the afternoon light is casting the same hue over the colors.

The arm is more orange in this image, and in the real painting, it's more flesh-colored. I think the camera's auto-balance messes with it a bit. The folks who have seen it in person have remarked that they're surprised how quickly they move past the arm and focus on the girl (or the man in the background), and they forget the arm is even there. That's gratifying, because I was trying to paint the way we see things (obstructions included), and I think that part of it kind of works.

I was talking to the arts group about how I want to leave in all the messy stuff -- telephone wires in modern landscapes and other elements that I think we filter out of what we see so the image is 'right," and she started laughing because she does exactly the opposite -- takes a building she likes and pulls it out of its setting so it's perfect and pristine, rather than painting dilapated sidewalks, etc. I'm trying to clutivate a sort of gratitude for the warts-and-all beauty that's actually there in real life -- a sort of verite aesthetic that can maybe redefine what we consider beautiful. We're so influenced by advertising and media's definition of beauty that I'm trying to push back toward something more realistic and humane.

[ProfJIM]

The folks who have seen it in person have remarked that they're surprised how quickly they move past the arm and focus on the girl (or the man in the background), and they forget the arm is even there. That's gratifying, because I was trying to paint the way we see things (obstructions included), and I think that part of it kind of works.



yeah thats a good sign of a good painting
and i see what you're saying. the focus is where its supposed to be
good job (y)

[abcdefz]

thanks (y)

[King of Rock II]

That's a slightly out-of-focus elbow and forearm. :o

It's hard to tell what it is, but that's probably ok. Like you said, you don't really have to know what it is. But I think the forearm is a little too... distracting. It's big and the color is kind of bright, well not really bright but I think it draws too much attention. You want to look at the woman but your vision gets sucked towards that big brown section on the right. If it was somewhere in the middle, a little to the bottom it would have been different cause then you could look over the arm to the woman (that's called a repoussoir, or something)

Maybe it's too late to do anything with this, or maybe you disagree with what I said, I just thought I'd share this. I have to say that I really like your paintings though including this one (y)

[rirv]

The persons back looks a bit flat and the left shoulder seems slightly detached or at the wrong angle.

[abcdefz]

It's hard to tell what it is, but that's probably ok. Like you said, you don't really have to know what it is. But I think the forearm is a little too... distracting. It's big and the color is kind of bright, well not really bright but I think it draws too much attention. You want to look at the woman but your vision gets sucked towards that big brown section on the right. If it was somewhere in the middle, a little to the bottom it would have been different cause then you could look over the arm to the woman (that's called a repoussoir, or something)




That's probably not a bad idea. Hmm....

I might have to just lighten the forearm/elbow a bit and see how that looks.




The persons back looks a bit flat and the left shoulder seems slightly detached or at the wrong angle.




The shades of black kind of homogenize in the image; in real life, you can see it's a hooded sweater.

[Rich Cheney]

May I? Thank you.

I can't seem to see past the obtrusion in the foreground. If Van Gogh painted everything exactly as he saw it he wouldn't be Van Gogh now would he?

[abcdefz]

i think maybe the girl's top need a little more detail, cos you have more detail on the old man's face than her top and he is further away from her




Again -- if you saw it in real life, you'd see there's light hitting the texture of the sweater. It's really one of the few wholly succesful parts of the painting.




May I? Thank you.

I can't seem to see past the obtrusion in the foreground. If Van Gogh painted everything exactly as he saw it he wouldn't be Van Gogh now would he?



Van Gogh and I have different aims.

[little j]

it looks wonderful dahvid.

the forearm still looks like a boob...
;)

[abcdefz]

What's dung is dung.


As far as "most critiqued" goes -- I LOVE constructive criticism -- positive and negative opinions. Soemtimes people see things I don't see (the hair is a great example) or don't see things I intend them to see. Feedback is one of the best tools I've got.

Thanks to everyone who has helped with this and other stuff. You're all right in my, uh..... my, uh...... book.

[like2_drink]

awsome art man..i gotta go tho cause my cat is rippin up the chair :confused:

[bb_bboy]

I think that many parts of the image look flat. There isn't enough 'depth of field' type layering to make you feel as though you are actually in the space with the subject. I appreciate the theory behind placing the elbow in the foreground but agree with others that it is distracting. I think that the coloration, technique, and detail given to it cause it to be this way. I think that as a compositional element it has very little value even while bearing in mind the point that you are trying to make. I think part of this relates back to the general lack of depth conveyed in the image and the difference between how people actually see through two eyes and the contrasting limitations presented i nthe creation of a still image.

I think the background is also distracting. The window looks like a flat painting itself, rather than a set of opaque/translucent blinds in front of a transparent window in front of a distant landscape. The tree as seen in the original photo has become a rigid block and the building an uninteresting blur. The vanishing point(s) that should be dictating how you represent the geomtery of the room do not have an effect on the lines of the blinds which makes the whole piece much less convincing. The same goes for the mortar joints in the brick and the curved line of the wall to the left of the windows.

I think that the shade and shadow have improved since the first posting of this piece but are still not as well done as those you acheived in Transit Rider. They contribute to the lack of depth in the picture overall, in the individual objecs themselves, and in the objects relative to one another.

Those are the things that I take the most issue with. Please keep posting your work so that we can all continue to enjoy it.

[abcdefz]

Very well thought-out and candid. Thanks! (y)