My first commission

[mjkohler]

MY IMAGE(S):
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/upload_spool/02-03-2002/5774_misc_473.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/upload_spool/02-03-2002/5774_misc_307.jpg


GENERAL INFORMATION:
Title: My first commission
Year Created: 2002
Medium: Oil
Surface: Canvas
Dimension: 900mm x 1200mm
Allow digital alterations?: Yes!

MY COMMENTS:
this is a copy of a painting I did previously.
I was asked to make a larger copy of it.

commission is image 1
original is image 2

MY QUESTIONS FOR THE GROUP:
I feel that I need to put a few more strokes into the middle bit of the painting to bring it forward of the hills behind.

Does this painting have the strength of the first.

[cagathoc]

In the first pic, I see the hills seperated from the graases in the foreground but the hills are warmer so they come forward (like you already knew).

Then in the second pic, I see the hills and the grasses as being the same color and value. I think if you want to pull the grasses forward (since they are in the foreground) you have to warm them up and cool the hills and add some detail and texture to the grass.

It's a beautiful painting! :)

[mjkohler]

Thank you again cagathoc. You know its interesting. The same things that I struggled with in the original painting were what I struggled with in the copy. You would think that I would have learnt. Possibly the struggle was because of the brightness of the hills. Still it is interesting to try and learn ways to work around the obvious.

The top picture is the copy. The second the original. The top was looking too green. I spotted it as soon as I posted the two together. I have worked a little more on it and am satisfied with depth. The painting in life does have depth. I am attaching a copy. It is also off to the gallery today. mjk

[jjrepass]

Hi! I'm new to this forum. Please let me know if I'm being helpful.

I think the image that you posted shows quite a bit of depth on the screen. A lot more depth than the original. It seems like you paid more attention to detail in the foreground and less in the background. This, combined with the warm advancing/cool receding, really helped.

[arlene]

i think they're both excellent...the copy is more vibrant, and i tend to enjoy vibrant better...i would suggest darkening the water a bit to let it recede a bit...right now it appears on the same plane as the foreground, whereas in the original it recedes.

[mjkohler]

Thank you jrepass and arlene. In the photograph the water appears to be a lot lighter than in the painting.

Its an interesting comment you made regards the foreground being more worked on and that bringing it closer. I will have to remember that for other occassions that i have that particular challenge. mjk

[elyisus]

Hi. I don´t think it has the same strenght and the reason seems to me it is the bushes or trees behind the hills, right on the upper right of the painting. I really like the way they are (color/value) on #1, they seem really on the back, while in paint #2 they sort of come to the from, due to its brightness.... ¿is that related to your concern about the hills?
I like your style.