 |
| Original photo, taken in shade with flash [1st mistake] |
 |
| Buddy II, at which point I realized I could not create deeper shadows to give illusion of depth |
 |
| Start again; same colors, with lavender wash on dog to indicate shadows |
 |
| I am here; still a ways to go, but to me, it already has more depth |
He does have more depth, Kathryn. I sometimes paint shadows on first, too :)
ReplyDeleteBeautiful..........
ReplyDeleteI find the first already fantastic, Kathryn! But I know the urgence to paint a second version if I don't like the first... I'm looking forward for the completed second painting!
ReplyDeleteI love your Buddy, and I think he looks glorious already, so I am very curious to see the next. Have a nice day!
ReplyDeleteVery nice works! Like them a lot!
ReplyDeleteBeautiful dog and the painting is looking great. It's hard to remember this but the lightest parts of his face are not really as light as you see them. Don't match the values in the photo, try and have him around so you can see the real value of the fur on his face.
ReplyDeleteand right...no flash. It distorts values.
It's really interesting to see how you progress!
ReplyDelete(To answer your question on my blog: St. Fiacre was a gardener and was, as I understand, originally the saint of the gardeners. He bacame later - because of the hotel name... - also the saint of cab and taxi drivers.) :-)
This time it is working. I draw dogs and the black ones can be a challenge. Certainly the quality of the reference makes a difference but you seem to be compensating well.
ReplyDeleteDepth or no depth I liked Buddy - II. :)
ReplyDeleteYour WIP also looks very interesting.