View Full Version : Dr. Speckle 'n' Mr Hide

Wayne Gaudon
11-25-2003, 05:13 PM

Title: Dr. Speckle 'n' Mr Hide
Year Created: 2003
Medium: Oil
Surface: Board
Dimension: 30 x 20 Inches
Allow digital alterations?: Yes!

I'm thinking the loss of the excess sparkle is what I needed but I'm easily fooled by Jerry's Enigma or is it Jerry the Enigma !!!!
whatever . I'm confused.

works for me .. does it do it for you? A few little sparkels of light bouncing off the oil paint here and there so ignore any glare.

11-25-2003, 05:54 PM
(I won't get into the discussion you guys had...
I'd rather just listen/enjoy...and not intertupt)

I saw the other...it was delightful
this, however, is very dramatic and beautiful


Dana Design
11-25-2003, 08:58 PM
Breathtaking! And loved the discussion! More was said than was said.


11-25-2003, 09:29 PM
you went much deeper
and you tolerated me, bravo 2

11-25-2003, 09:32 PM
Oh yeah!

Sky pops now
lights look brighter


11-25-2003, 09:55 PM
I have learned sooo much from this.
Would it be possible to put all three images side by side?

11-25-2003, 11:30 PM
mama mia......would you LOOK at that! What a difference alterations can make! woohoooooooo...:)

go Wayne, go!

11-26-2003, 01:21 AM
its a beauty....if i have a note for improvement it would be to lighten the contrast to the trees...but ill just bet its due to the nature of this digital format that the trees are all black....makes me want to lie down on the ground and watch the cloud faces go by...

Wayne Gaudon
11-26-2003, 06:42 AM
giniaad .. thank you as always
.. a discussion is always a good thing .. an argument on the other hand is always a bad thing .. Jerry is a pleasure to discuss things with if you can get him engaged as he has a broad knowledge base.

Dana .. thanks

Jerry .. I learn .. slowly but surely and sometimes I need to be beat over the head to open a hole so things can seep in. Thank you for staying with me. I could not get the drag and scuffle effects that I would have liked on this as there was too much paint on the canvas even after scraping back but I hope you will see a major swing in the application of the technique on the next larger work. Thanks again.

Rober .. thank you .. yes I reworked all but the sky.

Cath~ :D .. thank you

stephanf .. thank you .. yes, the values are lighter by 1 to 1.5 times in the trees .. there are rusts, yellows, mauve, etc. in there but very deep values and the camera cannot convert them so it changes all to black .. $*&(( Digital .. LOL .. I don't use black.


That is good, because I have learned a lot as well. I asked a very accomplished and professional Candaina artist to give me their opinion on the two pieces .. I did not include the middle as it was only a pc generated thought. I include the whole critique as it may help you and others. I know it will help me and I intend to add the few helpers as mentioned in the critique. I am honored and flattered that this artist would take the time to do such a study of my work and as the artist doesn't post here I will not offer up a name as this was done by request.

Hi Wayne

I put both paintings into Corel D. and blew them up for a comparison look.
I find that your second version is, in my opinion, the much better painting of the two.

The composition --is much stronger or dramatic in the second painting. In your first version, I feel that the angle from the top left of the painting to the bottom rt. of the painting is too straight. The river is straight and more hard edged in the first which invites the eye of the viewer to move too fast along its path. This has been corrected in the second painting.

I feel that the flat ground (2nd piece) from the middle ground continues across the river and to the foreground ( a flat plane that changes into a horizontal plane (the trees) These planes are easy for the eyes to follow and are not interrupted by the different angle of the river. You have also decreased the angle that I mentioned in the above paragraph. This angle is made up now of the trees on the left and lower plane of the foreground and river at the bottom right. This allows you to put in the river at a much lower angle. This angle is a much better perspective for the river and the interpretation of its plane.
I feel that your middle and background are fine the way they are. Perhaps a note here to check that the tops of your trees in the background are not too parallel to the top of your hill. Just a thought. I am often guilty of this.
The impression of the rocks, scrubs and shoal (to me) under the tree to the bottom rt. is just the right amount of detale as to not take away from the flow of the eye across the bottom of the painting.
Compositionally--it is a strong composition. I feel everything fits well now. I think that I have reinforced what you have already done ! I can not comment on the knife work but to only say that I love the action of it.

Coffee Time !

Colour--You were right in my opinion. The colour, although similar, was spotty and did fight for the attention of the eye. The remake is much better.
Having said this, I do like the warmer colour spots that you have on top of the distant hill. The final version seems a bit cool over all and tends to be a little boring. Perhaps a spot of warmer colour here and there would give the impression of different foliage and warm up the background and rid some of the "sameness" in colour
I also like the hint of mauve or grey-mauve that you have in the first piece. It goes nicely with the bits of warm colour that is on the top of the hill.
As a suggestion, maybe a hint of the sky-blue could appear in the river water as it emerges from behind the smaller tree on the left and touches the top of the shore line. Although the trees are dark, I feel that there would be light behind them. Maybe consider some "water-holes through the lover branches of the tree to indicate this lightness and the water behind the tree. Of course, these are my biases for final touches and I offer them as suggestions.

I have been viewing your exercises, Wayne and I feel that this is a good refinement of that work.

Thanks for inviting me to comment on your work. I hope that my rambling is a benefit to you,This has been a good exercise and has made me think of the many things that I should be aware of in my own work.

It has been an honour.

Take Care, and "Happy Painting"

11-26-2003, 01:18 PM
Thanks Wayne for sharing this with us -so valuable!!
I plan to re-read it again later and use the long holiday weekend to paint, keeping this critique in mind.

11-26-2003, 02:02 PM
wayne...thankx for sharing that critique.....it is very nice to know there are some in depth feedback discussions herein...it allows those less knowledgeable to actually see something solid and relaize the thought processes behind it... and learn

the art school i went to really never discussed the meat very well to enlighten us...discussions like here can be of a benefit to the youngsters....

as an added note these lessons we learn herein also apply as well to abstract works....the viewers will enjoy works that give the eye something to look at long enough to keep the interest involved with whats going on...be it only color and form....the eye likes variety to keep the interest....the outside edges are important to what goes on inside and if you mimick the parallell lines too much it creates redundancy and perhaps boredom, and if you entirely ignore the edges will create choas(sp?) and to make this rambling a little more convoluted, rules are made to be broken....its just important to know what rules it is you break....

Wayne Gaudon
11-26-2003, 07:04 PM
thank you .. hopefully it can help more than me.

11-26-2003, 09:55 PM
Thanks for posting this. The critique is useful, and I like the painting too.

I think the foreground (in front of the trees) is especially improved in the latest version. Only thing I like less well is that the highlit area in the background looks a bit washed out - I liked the warmer colors too.
Overall it looks good, more dramatic than the first version.