Need Direction with composition and lighting

[SquarePixel]

hello everyone,

I have been a member for awhile and i've had the chance to see incrediable ' talent, i'm very humbled by it, i hope that i can give the forum some justice with my comps. unforunately, i have a long way to go before considering myself a matte painter. I seem to be having some trouble with composition and lighting.This is my first post and any comments would really be appreciated.

thanks alot

-Squarepixel
http://img189.exs.cx/img189/263/canyonrough0sn.jpg

[B. Kachel]

Hey Squareoixel,


I think the composition and lighting is good, and you have a good layout started. If you incorporate spme photos over the top, especially over the foreground elements that will help it a lot. Photo reference is very important.

-Brandon Kachel

[bcottman]

Being a backlit scene, I would push the scene to be much lower key. If you photographed this scene you could only expose for the light source or the foreground, not both. I would push the forms way to the dark side and then develop the rim lighting on them. Also, get rid of the contrasty shading on the shadow sides. Having the shadow side overdeveloped like that destroys the lighting. Keep the shadow values in the shadows and the light values in the light. Maybe try doing a 3 value study to clarify the lighting.

Bringing in some more vibrant colors could also be good, deeper purples and reds in the shadows and more vivid oranges next to the highlights.

Incorporating photos like Brandon suggested could be a good idea, but it could be cool just to continue it as a painting as far as you can. Looking at some reference is definetely a good idea though.

Cool concept and composition.
hope that is some help

Brenton

[SquarePixel]

Hey B.Kachel,


always a pleasure hearing from you again. Thanks for info about the photos i will definetly give that try. I appreicate the critque, I guess there big difference from concept painting and photorealistic rendering. I'm trying to break that habit of guessing what something looks like rather than replicating what it actually looks like. As always, i'm trying learn as much as i can from different resources. Do you think i should pull out the scene more and add more canvas? I looked at it and the comp might seem too conjested. what do you think?


Bcottman,

Thank you for the Critque, I didn't even consider about those things you talked about. Could you explain more about, " If you photographed this scene you could only expose for the light source or the foreground, not both". Thank you for the compliments, but i know its not nearly up to up snuff as others i've seen on forum. I will definity consider the vibrant colors as well. If i developed the rim light more wouldn't that bump up the contrast of the shadows?

thank you so much for taking time to critque and you two helped alot


-SquarePixel

[bcottman]

Could you explain more about, " If you photographed this scene you could only expose for the light source or the foreground, not both".
if you were actually at this place you could look at the sky and see a range of detail then look at the foreground landscape and your eye would adjust to a different range of values to see detail there. however in a photograph or painting you only get one shot and one scale. if you expose for the sky, you would maybe have 5 or 6(out of 10) values devoted to the detailing of the sky and light, you would be limited to the remaining 4 values to complete all of the detail in the image that is darker than the sky. The reverse would be the case if you exposed for the landscape, the sky would be only 2 or 3 values and considered blown out.

a rim light wouldn't add contrast to the shadows, it would create contrast bettween the shadows and light. the shadow would be only a 2 to 3 value range.

some of the values in the shadows of this shot are almost as light as light areas on the rocks behind it. I am suggesting reducing the range of these shadow details.

sorry if I was unclear
Brenton

here are some links to paintings that may help.
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=14342
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=4474
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=881
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=863

[SquarePixel]

hey Brenton,


I appreciate the feedback, so you saying that the level of value of a photo is exposed from the way the light divides the values. For example, the hot spot of a spotlight still contains the 1-10 value range but in closer gradation. i.e the compostion is limited to value in certain areas, if the light was bright in the BG then area in the forground would contain 6-10 value range because 1-5 value range is already taken up? I hope i'm correct in this answer. I don't think you were unclear, just an area that i'm unfamiliar with.

The examples you gave were awsome pieces of work, and they really tie into what i'm trying to accomplish.

One more question if you don't mind? Would the Sky be lighting the rock in the forgound because bouncing light?

Thanks again Brenton

-SquarePixel-(Jonathan)

[bcottman]

Hmmm.
Think of it as a range that you have to work within. You have to compromise what is important to see in the image with what values you have to work with. If you want to see the shadow detail then you have to clip the high values. If you want to see the high values then you have to clip the darks. Either way you should have a full range of values in an image.

the values in your painting are showing shadow detail, however being a backlit sunset, it may work better exposing for the sky.

about the FG rock, the sky would probably reflect some light on it. But it is a diffused light and the sky opposite the sunset would probably be on the dark side. Using one of the Bierstadt paintings as a guide would be a good idea.