View Full Version : Foster loves butterflies

07-22-2009, 06:26 PM

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/upload_spool/07-22-2009/[email protected]_7.21.09.jpg

Title: Foster loves butterflies
Year Created:
Medium: Oil
Surface: Linen
Dimension: 16X24
Allow digital alterations?: Yes!

This is obviously a work in progress. It was done initally in grisaille and glazed in layers.

I am struggling with translucency. I have some puffed sleeves and also the wings, which I would love to portray in an ephemeral and ethereal quality. Any constructive criticism is sorely needed.

07-22-2009, 08:51 PM
Here is a rather crude workup demonstrating what happens if you just leave the underlying color such as the black background and the flesh color of her arm under the puff sleeve and then paint your object over the top of it letting it show through. This works better for showing translucence than trying to paint an object translucently in and of itself... This is really a cute painting, I hope we get to see the refinement of your finished version. Perhaps this demo will be of some help...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/22-Jul-2009/[email protected]_7.21.09.jpg

07-22-2009, 11:29 PM
what a sweet smile Foster has....I love butterbugs too....ydhttp://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/22-Jul-2009/182771-chase.gif

07-23-2009, 08:38 AM
Thanks Corby, for your help here. Are you saying that painting the arms without sleeves, and then adding the translucent puffy sleeve afterwards
is the way to go here?

And oh, Yarddog, I have not heard the term Butterbug....that is now the name of the painting. Thanks!

07-23-2009, 12:10 PM
If you wish.... I paint glass or any translucent object by not painting it. Only when the general background is in do I go in and indicate the translucent object by well placed edges and color that defines its shape. So, yes, I would paint the arm as you want it and then just indicate the sleeve over the top of it. It will be somewhat like painting glass in that it will be more apparent on the edges as to color and shape than in the middle. There must be some middle detail though to give us the visual affirmation that there is material across the arm as well.Yarddog is a marvel, there ought to be a forum for 'gifs' and I will forever now call butterflies 'butterbugs'! Here is a small section of a still life I did in the manner described above: Note that the glass is only painted around the edges and a couple of highlights in the unpainted center leads us to believe or accept that there is glass there....


07-23-2009, 05:20 PM
to me its kinda like what these folks have said..except i would describe the way i handle such issues is to forget that its a sleeve or wing...etc. and only paint the odd and colorful shapes that make it up...that way you don't get bogged up in the object itself and after the task of putting the puzzle together of color, shape, and edges...you get what you want..thats only going to work if you are drawing from reference ...it won't help you if coming out of imagination :)

07-23-2009, 10:20 PM
Two thoughts
While I think you've gotten expert and thoughtful analyses of the transparency issue, I was taught that when you build up glazed layers over a grisaille start, you'll get a sense of luminosity and depth but hardly transparancy and there's no going back. So perhaps the simpler approach taught by Corby is the answer and grisaille+glazing is the wrong approach to achieve your goal.
I add that I think you've got drafting errors in the face. The figure's left side seems unduly magnified compared to the right. You sure nailed the expression though.

07-24-2009, 08:31 PM
Great job on this painting and great advice from Corby. I will have to go back and save his demonstration on the glass painting. My only nit would be her left eye as we view it. I would love to see the same sparkle you put in her right one. Fun painting.......Lenore