PDA

View Full Version : Trees...darker than we might imagine..a discussion and sharing


LarrySeiler
09-12-2006, 11:54 AM
I was sitting in a teacher's staff meeting this morning, and as is my habit, I bring a couple of my art magazines to peruse thru (tsk tsk...I know!). Had a Plein Air mag with me this morning...and I was reminded on something I was going to start a discussion sometime ago.

Many past write/teachers (Carlson...for one) spoke that the sky is the lightest in terms of planes and light. The ground then next lightest, and the trees being vertical appear and need to be represented darker.

That seems to make sense in theory, but then many of us painting out there especially later in the day when the sun is lower see spectacular color hitting trees such that they glow.

When we try to paint them glowing...the paintings don't always feel just right.

Often...we nearly have to paint our skies close to white so that the lighter value of the glow of the tree registers. We might choose to put a bit of complement in the sky to pit against the trees...but that can make the sky darker, and fight against the relationship of planes.

Of course, there are storms, dark clouds and all kinds of circumstances where this isn't an issue. I think of fall colored cottonwoods lit up by sun against dark mountains and shadows as well as dark clouds.

But...for the most part, it is interesting that trees can be painted dark, lean toward the reddish side, but because of the way the sky is represented and rest of the painting still feel as though the sun's light is hitting them.

I'll put up a couple examples...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-scottstrees1.jpg

the values of those midground trees are actually quite dark, but they come off feeling quite lit up...
Now...this is one of Scott Christensen's and I imagine a studio piece painted from one of his plein air...but still instrumental to consider...

here a closeup of the same-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-scottstrees_closeup1.jpg

Another of Scott's-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-scotttrees2.jpg

the trees are quite dark...but the light hitting the rocks and so forth yet gives it a feeling that the trees are struck by the sun's light..

here an Edgar Payne...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-paynetrees1.jpg

against the foil of the hazed out background...the warmer colors, though a darker value yet feel as though hit by light. Interesting???

Here one from Emile Gruppe-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-gruppe1.jpg

By going dark enough in general...that which is midvalue appears lighter, and thus light very light...

It seems the lower light key works better at following Carlson's ideas...

One thing that Payne said has stuck with me. For better or worse, its been the cause of a wrestling...that has taken me a bit from literalism of what I am seeing or trying to see to realize there needs to be interpretation due to limitations beyond my control.

In essense we begin with a deficit as painters, and I'll remind what I have reported in the past, Payne said that where values are concerned, the eye sees approximately 400 values outdoors in nature...but that pigment is limited in only representing approximately 40 distinct values. That's a huge difference, and if we are overwhelmed with one value or intensity of color in general may find a real struggle to get the painting to hold together.

He also suggested (back around the early 1900's) that nature's light is about 2,000 to 3,000 times more intense where color is concerned than pigment is able to imitate.

If that is true...then anyone that sets out naively thinking they can literally copy nature and produce exacting realism is in for a hard awakening and inescapable frustration. Instead we are at best given chance to interpret and we hope somehow to develop the facility or skill to pass on an exciting feeling that our painting is speaking our heart or the moment convincingly.

This thing Payne said admittedly has been sorta dogging me...and it is more apparent there needs to be more creative license or we need to acknowledge it anyway, or we are back to fooling ourselves that absolute realism can be visually stated.

I think maybe Chris or Bill said it (sorry don't quite remember), but that there is the attempt to paint realism...but often such attempts lack 'REALNESS...

wow...I like that.

Here now is a work from Libby Tolley, a popular woman artist...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-libbystrees.jpg

and I am impressed with the mid to darker value range yet feeling... holding to feeling warm, lit up...

one last one of Scott Christensen's-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-scotttrees3.jpg

perhaps in this last one...is is a combination of value contrast between snow and trees...yet the snow is not all that light in value, and secondly a complementary and color temperature thing going on...

now...I'll invite comments, discussion...examples from other artist's works you may be aware of, and perhaps we'll all benefit and enjoy....

LarrySeiler
09-12-2006, 11:59 AM
ah...heck, one more of Scott's..

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-scotttrees4.jpg

blondheim12
09-12-2006, 12:24 PM
Larry,
Here in north Florida we have a lot of very dark trees and they are often random. As I view fields and large masses of trees they are often quite dark, having brilliant trees juxtaposed next to them, rather like a patchwork effect between values.
Love,
Linda

JanB
09-12-2006, 01:05 PM
Larry, this past year when I began reading Carlson's book I immediately recognized a problem in my work....my verticals (trees usually) weren't dark enough...oooooooh BINGO the lightbulb goes on :D When I'm painting and things don't seem to be pulling together 9 times out of 10 it's because my vertical planes aren't dark enough!!

Wyn Easton
09-12-2006, 01:33 PM
Hi Larry,

For me, it all about relationships. Color and value relationships. True, we are limited by the ability of our pigments, but we can portray the relationships that we see. Heck, I learned this stuff from your CD. What gets my juices flowing is just what you mentioned. Those instances when the trees are lighter/brighter than the ground. When the sky is darker than the trees. It's almost like I'm trying to say, "here is an example that doesn't fit the rules and it still works". I think I'm a student of Kevin McPherson's school of thought.
Our job is to paint pretty pictures, not necessarily to portray Nature exactly.
If we wanted to do that, we could take a photograph and be done with it. I'm always thinking, what could make this scene better.

LarrySeiler
09-12-2006, 01:37 PM
Larry,
Here in north Florida we have a lot of very dark trees and they are often random. As I view fields and large masses of trees they are often quite dark, having brilliant trees juxtaposed next to them, rather like a patchwork effect between values.
Love,
Linda

cool Linda...sounds like enough stuff (random...) to challenge and keep artists on their toes!!! :D

LarrySeiler
09-12-2006, 02:03 PM
When I'm painting and things don't seem to be pulling together 9 times out of 10 it's because my vertical planes aren't dark enough!!


yep...values, and as I have often said...nine times out of ten if a painting isn't pulling together, it is less a color problem, more than likely a value issue. Gruppe said that nearly ANY color scheme or approach can be pulled off IF the values are right...

LarrySeiler
09-12-2006, 02:09 PM
Hi Larry,

For me, it all about relationships. Color and value relationships.

yep...and a high key painting from an artist such as Camille Przewodek, can paint the trees light..but because the lowest value is a higher starting point on the value scale....it yet feels right relatively speaking, so long as you carry the rest of the painting lighter as regards the relationship determined by the key...

True, we are limited by the ability of our pigments, but we can portray the relationships that we see. Heck, I learned this stuff from your CD.

hee hee... ;)
okay...so, you caught me...and see I played one of the key roles an instructor often does, and that is to play dumb so that discussion can engage..yet, if we are open minded we will always stand to learn still more!!! :) :thumbsup:


What gets my juices flowing is just what you mentioned. Those instances when the trees are lighter/brighter than the ground. When the sky is darker than the trees. It's almost like I'm trying to say, "here is an example that doesn't fit the rules and it still works". I think I'm a student of Kevin McPherson's school of thought.
Our job is to paint pretty pictures, not necessarily to portray Nature exactly.
If we wanted to do that, we could take a photograph and be done with it. I'm always thinking, what could make this scene better.

Yep...
I'm always running into those nonartist types that think we artists simply make pretty pictures but then are often surprised to discover we are capable of thinking and put a high emphasis on such! There is very little we can place into automatic and hope it will turn out.


:wave:

LarrySeiler
09-12-2006, 02:22 PM
speaking of Camille Przewodek, here are a couple of hers, and dang...she is good.

I tend to be more reserve, conservative...sensitive to neutrals, but her paintings as colorfilled as she pushes them just are so stinkin' good, and feels right. If you haven't checked out her work...you got to see a bunch to really get what she's doin' and appreciate it..
http://www.przewodek.com/index.html

here is one that is higher key, Wes...as I mentioned earlier-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-camilletrees3.jpg

and this one...trees darker, but you get the feeling light is warm, very present...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/532-camilletrees2.jpg

Tim Schutz
09-12-2006, 02:45 PM
Is it a matter of how we want the viewer to react or where we want to direct their attention? Below are examples by Matt Smith:

Here is an example that I think follows the previous examples of Christensen.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/53475-MS1.jpg

Here is an example of the opposite (in my opinion).
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/12-Sep-2006/53475-MS2.jpg

Did he use the values he did to aid in the composition and direct the viewers eye? Or was it based purely on the conditions as he saw them or interpretated them?

Interesting topic. I ask questions here because I haven't really evolved enough as a painter to encounter these in my own work but I'm interested in finding out how others think.

Tim

Johnnie
09-12-2006, 05:12 PM
Hi Larry

Looks to me that Scott's or any of the other artists 'Brown" trees he paints are in an area where they are dying and make good tinder for forest fires..They sure dont look even close to real to me.. I dont care how famous they are thats the way I see it.

The ladies painting is more real with the green and oranges of summer and fall. Any of the others with a green hue to them..

Colour differences is not values to me .. Hues of the same colour are values to me.. So to say brown ugly looking trees is a different value to green ones like your asking/saying in the last couple of pics to me is wrong.. Those are colour comparisons..

But then again I am probably wrong..

Johnnie

LarrySeiler
09-12-2006, 08:31 PM
hey Johnnie...sure respect your having your own tastes and druthers for sure!

I myself wouldn't mind my trees appearing to make such good tinder... :)

Bill Wray
09-13-2006, 02:22 AM
It's my opinion that when you have to paint the sky almost white for your trees to feel dark the trees are not dark enough. I think most painters paint to light in general, only making use of part do the value scale and not having enough contrast. I always go as dark as I can first, gives me more choice/ range. Working from photo's helped me push my darks. Sweet examples by the way.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-007_l.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-11courtk1032l.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-051_l.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-9348z0065.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-Braun_vertical.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-4BCTP_L04141-192.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-imdisplayxl-14.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/65633-imdisplayxl-34.jpg

LarrySeiler
09-13-2006, 08:59 AM
those are most excellent examples and a great contribution to the thread content, Bill...much much appreciated!!!! :clap:

I've had a few paintings where I have painted the sky nearly white...with success, but it is for the most part as you say!

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/532-camp20crkdonewc.jpg

one example where I used a very light near white sky, Bill...but otherwise, my skies are painted and colored. This one was an experiment and one to push for glare...


love those examples you have shared...!!! :)

JanB
09-13-2006, 10:57 AM
Gruppe said that nearly ANY color scheme or approach can be pulled off IF the values are right...

Easy to say (know) MUCH harder to do :lol: :lol: :lol:

LarrySeiler
09-13-2006, 11:04 AM
hahaha...yeah, but...not developing an ability to pull values off well regardless is going to be the end of most painter's potential mastery.

There are very few colorists that can pull off good depth illusion, for one...where values are so overtly similar. I saw one yesterday that was quite compelling that way, and I intended to convert it to grayscale just to see.

If I can remember who that was (think it might have been Camille), I'll come back and share it...

LarrySeiler
09-13-2006, 11:26 AM
okay...didn't take me too long, Jan...
it was Camille...and I found this piece interesting to study, called "Hill Shadows"

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/532-hillshadows_przewodek.jpg

and here I put it to grayscale...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/532-hillshadows_gray_przewodek.jpg

now, Camille yet incorporates her range of value differentation, and don't want to suggest she doesn't, but she does so with much less value emphasis than other painters because she gets more mileage out of her color, color temperatures and complementaries and so forth...but, it is interesting to look at her work and marvel.

Unfortunately, there are many colorists are not so skilled as Camille, and should put more thought toward rescuing their work with more convincing varried values ranges...

Jholdren
09-13-2006, 04:58 PM
Great discussion Larry! You are right, and I am learning that values are soooo important. Even those who have a more expressive style, like Camille P., are also very skilled at values. When I first began painting more seriously, I was afraid to make anything too dark. Now I am learning to use more value contrast and it does help. I think you can be expressive with color if your values are right on. If not, it just seems that color use being used slapdash. Many people don't realize that artists who are known for their use of color also employ value contrasts and neutrals to make that color work. Good topic!!

Justin

LarrySeiler
09-13-2006, 06:29 PM
Gessoed up some scrap board today...after school..drafted out a number of 5"x 7" penciled rectangles and did fifteen minute experiments...inspired by the works you shared here Bill...but, of past plein air pieces I did in Juneau...the intent to try a different color scheme...emphasis on simpler darker brushwork with trees and so forth.

Fun...and I like to think thru things with such experiments. Heck...its near gestural and what is fifteen minutes...?

here are two...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/532-juneauwray1.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/532-juneauwray2.jpg

I'm inclined to believe though...that if a guy did a number of these every so often..it would bound to be helpful and lead to more options and confidence afield...

twod
09-13-2006, 07:00 PM
another masterclass
i've always enjoyed reading your threads
interesting topic by the way

Bill Wray
09-13-2006, 08:18 PM
Gessoed up some scrap board today...after school..drafted out a number of 5"x 7" penciled rectangles and did fifteen minute experiments...inspired by the works you shared here Bill...but, of past plein air pieces I did in Juneau...the intent to try a different color scheme...emphasis on simpler darker brushwork with trees and so forth.

Fun...and I like to think thru things with such experiments. Heck...its near gestural and what is fifteen minutes...?

here are two...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/532-juneauwray1.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Sep-2006/532-juneauwray2.jpg

I'm inclined to believe though...that if a guy did a number of these every so often..it would bound to be helpful and lead to more options and confidence afield...
Larry I can't tell you how good these are. Keep it this simple outdoors, use bigger brushes and strokes, hold back on detail save all your effort for design, values/ light, harmony and big expressive brushwork. Forget the details like tiny strokes and highlights/ rim light, it will pay off for you big time.

Jean Levert Hood
09-13-2006, 08:56 PM
What a visual feast!!

Today, I reworked about 8 older paintings I've been looking at in my studio for some time, and the problem with every one was value. Sigh..my nemisis.

After reading and re-reading Carlson's book, my landscapes came together so much better. Yes, those 4 planes do vary with conditions, but basically, if I stick to his teaching, I keep out of a lot of trouble. ( there is enough other trouble out there to watch for!!) Good discussion.

Jean Levert Hood
09-13-2006, 08:59 PM
Hadn't seen your additional posts of your 15 minute paintings. I'm awed.
Fifteen minutes?? They are great. Wonderful looseness.

LarrySeiler
09-13-2006, 11:43 PM
thanks Bill....ya know, it was almost too easy though...
not to make it sound crass or arrogant, it just was...and...perhaps THAT'S a sign!!!! :D

If I adapted or evolved to such simplicity as a form of plein air, I would definitely have to do more instudio landscapes from them to appease that sense of being able to do more...larger, more involved and so forth.

Nevertheless, its fun trying the hand at something different!!! We'll see how it goes. I want to experiment more...at least for now. :)

Thanks Jean...
sure...fifteen minutes yeah, but how many years to come to be able to do that??? Not that impressive really seen in that light.

Gestural ideas don't call for much time. The idea is already played out in the head. You mix up the paint...grab the largest brush you can on hand, and just quickly put the paint down.

take care

Rosic
09-13-2006, 11:59 PM
This thread has been very helpful for me... Thanks!

palob
09-14-2006, 04:02 AM
Thank you Larry for this thread. This is so eye-opening! Now I know how to fix one painting with dark trees :thumbsup: . I tried it in photo editor and it should work.

Pavol

LarrySeiler
09-14-2006, 07:49 AM
just had a hunch this might be interesting to discuss...something I've been tossing about in my head...so, thanks Bern and Pavol..for the affirm...

:thumbsup:

JanB
09-14-2006, 08:19 AM
Can we get this thread in the Hall of Fame??? So much good info and ideas here to let it slip away into the archives!! Folks if you've benefitted from this thread please rate it, (upper right in the tool bar)

LarrySeiler
09-14-2006, 08:45 AM
oh yah...I hear ya Brian...
for me, I think it runs deeper than that, but I could adjust...or allow myself to think of the approach as a separate different animal. I could have my 15-20 minute plein airs, sorta like my "incidentals"...but come up with some fancy schmancy name like..."gesturals"

plein air has been a chance for me that is intimate and engaging, looking more deeply and so forth...and a gestural statement is more like a quick call over the police radio in an emergency so that the cops can attempt to locate someone in a crowd NOW!!!!!!....asap...but, doesn't really define the individual.

So...my adaptation could be that I evolve to put more emphasis in doing studio work and create larger more engaging landscapes...but such would be done away from the encounter moment...which I would miss.

This in turn would ask my plein air to be more studies or exercises in nature than the full art I've come to expect of them. Of course...that can change if the public responded favorably and saw the art in them, just as what happened when I went from my labored wildlife art to plein air in the beginning. I couldn't believe the public wanted my two hour unfinished looking efforts, but my art rep proved it otherwise and I slowly began to see the art in it.

So....I don't want to think too much about it...which I tend to do, that may unnerve and unravel me. I'll just call it an exercise for now...have fun with it, and not be too afraid if something good comes out of it. Really...its just about painting...and finding the joy in it.

LarrySeiler
09-14-2006, 08:47 AM
One of the things I'm hearing is that you still want the entire value range.

oh....also, in regard to the one I attempted the other day which prompted some instudio experimentation...McClintock Rapids...I think one problem was attempting to show the value ranges of the distant shore tree mass...suggesting various pine bough masses and so forth. Had I reduced that to more simpler flatter terms, that too would have created more depth and separation, opening up the painting. I might try one more experiment with that one as well...

One thing I'm learning...no matter how many years you've been painting, it gets exciting when you have pinnacle epiphany moments, even if very small ones!! Having friends with similar passions to toss things off on for feedback such as this forum, certainly has its rewards and satisfactions..... :)

Larry

Jean Levert Hood
09-14-2006, 11:17 AM
" Thanks Jean...
sure...fifteen minutes yeah, but how many years to come to be able to do that??? Not that impressive really seen in that light.

Gestural ideas don't call for much time. The idea is already played out in the head. You mix up the paint...grab the largest brush you can on hand, and just quickly put the paint down. "

Ohhhh, I get it!!!! Just mix, grab, and put it down!!! Yes!!!
It's soooo eeeeasy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just kidding, just kidding!!
:)
Great thread. Very good info.

LarrySeiler
09-14-2006, 04:25 PM
well...again, less time, greater simplicity...I did one more now in line with what else could have been done with that other McClintock Rapids piece I experimented with in line with what we've been talking about here...a quickie...5"x 7"

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Sep-2006/532-mcclintock_darkertrees.jpg

as I said, I've just been gessoing up scrap boards...and here you see this group set up on my half-box French...and the other board behind it with some smaller exercises sittin' up on the blackboard...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Sep-2006/532-scrap_setup.jpg

plan on doing some more...for fun, to hone in and lock in that notion of simplicity I can then hopefully experiment with in the field..

thing is...I like those engaging longer efforts in the field as well. Heck, consider Monet's obsession with having several canvases in the field day after day 'till finished, one up on the easel during the right time of day and light...then off the easel and the next one going up when the light changed.

Don't know if this simplicity is geared to eventually define my aesthetic impulse, but for the moment it is engaging and does seem to suggest a wholly different strategy to go with when nature presents one of those difficult moments.

I wonder if it might not be best to start a session at the very least, doing a quick (fifteen minute ) 5"x7" gestural leaning heavily toward color and mood...then set up the larger canvas allowing weight of consideration from the small one to play upon it. Always thinkin' anyway...

Larry

JanB
09-14-2006, 05:18 PM
I love the color mood in this and I wonder if it might not be best to start a session at the very least, doing a quick (fifteen minute ) 5"x7" gestural leaning heavily toward color and mood...then set up the larger canvas allowing weight of consideration from the small one to play upon it. Always thinkin' anyway... That's a very good idea!

LarrySeiler
09-14-2006, 05:28 PM
That's a very good idea!

Wow...don't think I've been accused of that before!!!! :D hahahaaa...

blondheim12
09-14-2006, 06:11 PM
Larry, For years I have taught my students(I do it too), to do quick draw paintings before the real thing, to establish color, values and composition. I do a series of paintings called progressives, which start and process through a series of 3 small pantings on a subject which helps me to decide on the best of three compositions for a final larger work. After the three small painting, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to do and I feel comfortable with the subject. Sometimes I use these alla prima studies for larger studio works.

Re: simplification. I'm not so sure about that. I'm a bit tired of that slap dash look, though I know it is all the rage now.
Love,
Linda

Sarah Judson
09-14-2006, 06:41 PM
Love this thread, thanks, everyone. Very helpful!
Since I use watercolor, I've always been wary of darks.


Re: simplification. I'm not so sure about that. I'm a bit tired of that slap dash look, though I know it is all the rage now.
Love,
Linda

I think "simple" could still be carefully done...

LarrySeiler
09-14-2006, 06:56 PM
well...for one, last on my mind though for the moment is what will is or is not the rage. I'm just excited to mess around...

In the northern Midwest it still for the most part comes down to labor intensive realism with detail detail detail...and if you do that, why THEN you're a good painter. So...I'm sure you're right Linda if you are mentioning it, but very few yet in Wisconsin have a clue what I'm doing! hahahaa... I can tell ya this, if there was a rage to be concerned with at all here in this area....I wouldn't be painting outdoors at all, that's for sure... ;)

at any rate...a bit of paint still on the palette so I slung some on a board,

7"x 5"

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Sep-2006/532-twelveftwraysperment.jpg

now...I gotzta go home... :wave:

Johnnie
09-14-2006, 07:11 PM
hey Johnnie...sure respect your having your own tastes and druthers for sure!

I myself wouldn't mind my trees appearing to make such good tinder... :)


Hi Larry..

Lol

Well the shapes and styles of the trees are just great.. I wish I could paint them that good also..

Its just the brownish colours that throw me off is all.. Thats what I was trying to say.. ;-)

Johnnie

LarrySeiler
09-14-2006, 07:36 PM
understandable Johnnie...
sometimes the mood of nature's light will make local color do odd things. For one...I'm sure in the fall with the sun just about to set, the tops of pines or conifers will glow reddish orange..and some nearly orangish pink. Of course...such trees are not reddish orange, but painting them so suggests a mood...

I think that's kinda what happens with that which leans brownish. Many of the pines I see show a hint of reds in the greens.

Well...let's logically think this out. Green is yellow + blue...and a hint of red present? Well...how does one mix a brown? I teach my students to mix yellow and red together, and a touch of blue. Voila....brown. So, to some eyes...that hint of present red on a green conifer might feel at times brownish, especially when the sun is doing its mood thing...

hope that explains...a bit...though still no problem if it ain't your druthers...

take care

LarrySeiler
09-15-2006, 03:42 PM
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/15-Sep-2006/532-alaskalike.jpg

one more...7"x 5" this one no place in particular, but intended to feel like Alaska...made up.

The process seems simple enough that making a ficticious place up is easily possible. Its not plein air, yet is based on several plein air references...and I'll stop posting these here since again they are not plein air works...but experiments. Still I hope the concepts are useful for plein air, the challenge working with a dominant and strategies from there...or simple representation of existing color.

I'm heading up to upper Michigan tonight...do a bit of fall walleye and smalley fishing at our cabin over the weekend and get in a plein air or two. Plan on doing a quick oil gestural before to see what happens in a live application.

Larry

Bobbo
09-15-2006, 06:36 PM
that one's spot on Larry!!!

Jean Levert Hood
09-15-2006, 10:30 PM
love this last one,


one more...7"x 5" this one no place in particular, but intended to feel like Alaska...made up.

Robin Neudorfer
09-16-2006, 11:51 AM
Thanks for this thread Larry. I am going to study everyones examples.

LarrySeiler
09-17-2006, 11:19 PM
thanks Rob...Jean and Robin..
I painted three 5"x7" plein airs up in upper Michigan this weekend. My computer is acting up...won't let me use my disk drives...so I'll have to upload images of those works from my classroom tomorrow...

Its a lot more difficult, or easier instudio to make a quick gestural study than to do it from life. I think it will come for me...at least, I think the works were more minimal than I usually work outdoors. Yet...I seem to require a bit more to satiate my painting interests outdoors.

:)

LarrySeiler
09-18-2006, 12:01 AM
Lo and behold...I got one drive to work..
I'll load on comp showing the three small works I did this weekend in upper Michigan...
I still want to post them in a separate thread, but they are an effort to simplify based on this thread here...and as I said, easier said than done.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/17-Sep-2006/532-uppermich_threeworks.jpg

Painter Nan
11-05-2013, 08:35 AM
Just found this and think it has a lot to offer. value is so important. going to re look at my landscapes