PDA

View Full Version : Iris


brushoff
06-08-2010, 07:40 PM
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/08-Jun-2010/135502-IrisMY IMAGE(S):
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/upload_spool/06-08-2010/135502_Iris


GENERAL INFORMATION:
Title: Iris
Year Created:
Medium: Oil
Surface: Canvas
Dimension: 16x20
Allow digital alterations?: Yes!

MY COMMENTS:
Every time I think I'm close to being done on this something else pops out at me. I will be adding a fair amount of foliage as soon as I get the rest tweaked.

MY QUESTIONS FOR THE GROUP:
Anything

Corby
06-09-2010, 12:00 AM
Beautiful iris...it should be named 'The Heart of Fire'! I understand the upright petals nicely, but I am not understanding the falls at all. They should all be oriented to the stem, the center of the flower and where the upright petals join. In that you cannot see this attachment you have to take note of the central rib on each fall. Note that all the veins attach to this central rib as it moves toward the stem. This veining pattern clues us in as to the shape of the falls. Also if this particular has a beard that helps as well because the beard follows the midrib right up next to the upright petals where the falls attach... Perhaps none of this applies in that this may of course be a different kind of iris, there are dozens of types. Love your colors! Keep that stem strong and robust so as to hold the heavy blossom.

Sam_I_Am
06-09-2010, 03:20 AM
Hi, Brushoff -- lovely iris! I do agree with Corby on his points. And, although it is beautifully painted, I feel like more could be done with the composition. You've got your flower sitting not only in the middle of the composition width wise, but also height-wise. It makes the stem look somewhat underwhelming, and doesn't satisfy my eye as I would like it to. I might suggest darkening the bottom half of the canvas to create the illusion of weight in the composition.

Great job!

Stef

crazywoman53
06-09-2010, 11:51 AM
I agree with Corby on the falls as well. There is not enough definition there to see individual falls and they seem to come together in one mass that doesn't read correctly. The upright part is nice but I am not getting the inner depth I want to see in the middle. Not sure if it is a value thing or a color issue as that darker blue/purple center wants to come out instead of going in to me. I am anxious to see how you finish this one. It will be beautiful.

freeskier89
06-09-2010, 11:26 PM
I think you did a great job, but the thing that struck me as a little weird was the intense blue background... I think it steals attention from the flower. Its the most saturated part of the painting. Luckily its a easy change if you choose to change it! Here is a view of what it would look like changed a bit so it fit in a bit better (although definitely not the only way you could do it).

http://i46.tinypic.com/219rlas.jpg

brushoff
06-10-2010, 12:03 AM
I forgot to mention that the background color is a true periwinkle which actually does much more for the painting than is shown. I tried to capture it using every setting on my camera but to no avail as well as adjusting in photoshop. Needless to say, the real colors of the iris are also not showing true. I do like the lighter background as suggested and now I am torn between the two.

Corby
06-10-2010, 12:07 AM
Hi Brushoff! Here I am again as per request.:wave: I did not do a workup initially because Iris are so complicated it is impossible to do them justice with just a quick swipe on the computer (for me at least) So I am now doing this simply without any undue detail or coloring, just to convey the shape and placement of petals. I have also tried to indicate how I like to construct edges. Anything I have shown here with the computer is more than do-able with oils and a brush. Working wet in wet is especially wonderful because the subtleties of veining and depth just work themselves. I hope you get the idea from the workup of what I did. If not question me. I fully recommend that anyone that paints any flower must first take that flower and dissect it into its parts. the shape of each part and how it relates to the top of the stem. It is as true with flowers as with any fleshly anatomical form. If you don't know the shape and construction you can at best, only do a reference copy and you will never be ably free to paint what is needed without a dozen references to look at. In this case for example, although the workup is just that, not fine art in itself it is nonetheless just out of my head and imposed on your image. However you choose to finish it off it is going to be a wonderful painting and I hope a further building block in your work!

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Jun-2010/70790-Iris.jpeg

brushoff
06-10-2010, 11:26 AM
Thank you so much for your insight. I had reached an impasse on the lower section and this gives me cause to make the improvements and return to the enjoyment of it. Being the visual person that I am, your attachment certainly has enabled me to proceed in the right direction. I do have a slight touch of very pale lemon yellow highlights. If I add the brighter yellow as shown on your critique, should I enhance the others as well? As always, thank you, thank you and thank you for your time.

Corby
06-10-2010, 12:16 PM
Highlights can be very bright...according to general tone of the area. they result from the character of the lighting itself and are put in according to your over all values. Highlights will never be brighter than the light source itself. reflections are even more subdued than the lighting source. And of course color variation within an object will be in keeping with the values of the object itself...short answer...no I would not increase the color or brightness of the lemon yellow. The beard need not be orange, though in this type/color of Iris it usually is. It can also be any color of yellow through orange red and a definite tan color. match it to the flower you are painting and you can then use the same color much toned down for reflections in the flower itself. It is all a balancing act...