When do we get painting number 2?
Senior Member
When do we get painting number 2?
Senior Member
Hey, DO!
I have been writing a new EDI/ASN interface for a new client that is moving into our warehouse. It is taking all of my time and I haven't had a chance to paint anything at all.
XML, Amazon, Neiman Marcus, Holt Renfrew, JC Penny, Blue Mercury, 846, 940, 944, 945 file formats... Mumbo Jumbo that just keeps going on for days! It is a three-month-long project that kicks off on August 3rd. Oh, yea... Lot processing too.
When do we get to see some of your new works? I would love to see something new from you!
Robert Hopkins
Senior Member
I am considering a new approach to painting real acrylic paintings. At least it is new, for me... Here are my ideas:
1. Take a copyright free image from the internet (https://pmp-art.com) or a landscape image from my phone and use the image as a tracing in ArtRage.
2. Paint a stage one painting that is very "Loose" using the blending Square Canvas 2 brush. Add pleasing colors to it from a very blurred perspective so that the values and colors of the landscape are correct and very painterly. Add more painterly colors to the image since most camera images are to flat. Save the image as a PNG file.
3. Print the image onto 16 x 20 canvas using my Canon printer. Wait a day for the ink to cure. I might consider putting a coat of acrylic varnish on it at this time. Not sure about this step right now.
4. Paint on the printed canvas as a "paint by numbers painting" and allow some of the printed canvas to shine through.
5. I really struggle with mixing real-life colors and may just get a complete set of Liqutex Hard Body paints and just paint from the tube. This brand of paint has the best-covering capability. One of my favorite YT artists paints from the tube and does not mix. He can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCle...gySppuA/videos
6. Varnish the finished "real" painting!
Any thoughts DO? Has anyone else ever tried this approach before with success?
Robert Hopkins
Senior Member
Rather than varnish I used matte or gloss medium. That you would have to test to see what you want. Gloss is clearer but makes everything shiny which doesn't match acrylic when it's dry, but if you spray everything at the end it may make it uniform. But you'll likely want the paint to look as close to the finish when you're putting it down because the colors and values might shift on you with the final coat of varnish. The matte medium gives a milky dullness which means you may have to paint the whole surface eventually. All depends on how thick you do. You might get away with dry mounting before painting in which case you'll bypass the wet mounting step I'm about to mention. But understand that the mounting has to be solid lest the paper bubble on you later.Originally Posted by HwyStar
You have to be careful with this wet mounting way to push the air bubbles out but you also have to be very careful to not scuff the now delicate paper surface while it's wet. You take matte medium which is what I used, a water bucket, a broad soft sable-like brush (bristle will possibly harm your paper surface and may pull up the pigment when wet), your printed image and some cold press illustration board.
You wet the illustration board (heavy weight board will not tend to buckle so much) so that when you put down your medium it will flow evenly. Not too wet, certainly not dry. So wet illustration board and spread matte medium all over the board. Then wet your print on paper and let some of the excess drain off. It will want to curl so move at a fair clip. Then lay it onto the board so as to minimize air bubbles and push the air out from the middle outward to the edges as you paint over the top with more matte medium.
The trick is to not put too much or too little on. A medium thick coat should be enough to hold it down. And keep the brushing to a minimum. And then let it dry. Make sure there aren't any boogers in the medium on the back as it will tent pole your paper and it may not make a good contact. If the boogers are on the front you can carefully get them off. If you do have the odd small air bubble, you can cut it with a very sharp x-acto knife or razor and press the air out through that hole and press it gently down back into the moist medium holding it to the board. Then gently give it a little more medium on the surface or smooth it out. Do all that when wet. Once dry the paper won't be so flexible and may retain the bubble shape.
As it dries it may want to bow the illustration board so you may want to have it taped to a regular wood board you would use to stretch watercolor paper. It works a bit like stretching watercolor paper in that when wet it will stretch out and will shrink up when drying.
I've done it where I let it air dry and have done it where I used a blow drier. If you use a drier, just watch it carefully.
You may blow it from time to time as you look for short cuts. I didn't paint over photos. I worked over plain old BW xerox paper with line drawings.
If you can afford it, I would use dry mount and bypass all that. But you won't know until you try and evolve your technique if you do it enough. If it's a one shot deal, then you want to go straight to the solution. I got to where I was doing it a lot and the matte medium worked because if you milk up a line drawing that is going to be painted over it's no big deal. It usually worked.
You want to work fairly quickly. And there will possibly be a natural tooth from brushing the medium depending on where the sweet spot is in how much medium to use. But once it's dry it's dry and you won't be able to further manipulate it. The print when doing this will be delicate and can scuff or tear if you're too aggressive. But once dry it should be fairly sturdy -- again, doing it is really the only way to know.
Hope this helps and makes sense as I hope I mentioned enough to run with. So remember that the medium will have a sheen and/or a milkiness to it, as will the paint and you may want to have them match as you paint so it's not distracting and you can match saturation and value levels. But it may not be an issue for you. Also you have to find out how the acrylic stuff sticks to the ink from your printer. It may bead up if the ink resists the plastic of the paint. Again, you really have nothing to lose except minimal cost and some time.
And if it works you're on your way with lots of possibilities presented by digital. One of the nice things about working with a print, you can reduce and enlarge and do all the manipulation stuff ahead of time.
I used to do this all the time as described above. I never had need for dry mounting, but DTP tools were not evolved enough to bother with it other than for quickly transferring a line drawing and playing with various color variations. It may or may not be worth it to you. I also know serious painters who would do digital, print it on a giclee and paint atop that -- no hassle. All you have to do is throw money at it, but if you're making money selling paintings, then the expense is covered.
Have fun.
Last edited by D Akey; 06-17-2018 at 08:12 AM.
"Not a bit is wasted and the best is yet to come. . ." -- remembered from a dream
Senior Member
I haven't tried this, but I definitely want to look at printing some of my ArtRage paintings and applying some of the same principles...adding a gel coat and maybe really acrylic paint touches on top. Have you given it a go yet?
Also, those paintings are beautiful!
Senior Member
Thanks for the great replies Guys!
D Akey: Let me digest your post and get back with you. I just woke up from a nap!
Chad: I did get myself a Canon Pro-1000 printer (17x24.5 print jobs) and it is "the bomb"! The colors are spot on and it prints with great clarity. I have been printing on canvas and applying Liquitex varnish, plus Golden Heavy Duty Gel paste for the brush strokes. The final paintings are coming out wonderfully.
I am printing on photo paper too. Everyone who sees this painting loves it. I got the frame from Michaels for $32.00 and it includes the matting. The print job is 14.5 x 18.5:
Thanks again, Dudes!
Robert Hopkins
Senior Member
Thoughts:
The engineer in me has these thoughts:
From a process point of view the above seems very doable. I would suggest calibrating your printer and monitor and using some kind of software proofing, to get a reliable print with as few printing - adjusting and reprinting cycles as possible (save ink and time). I also think (even though you don't gravitate towards his brushwork) Mark Carder has an excellent approach (https://youtu.be/TNB3XY67Q-I) to mixing any color from just a few primary colors, if you want to learn how to mix instead of buying all that paint. Also, print a second copy for reference. Since you are painting over the first one, having one which has all the value and color relationships intact might be useful.
The artist in me has these thoughts:
1: Use the copyright free image only as a guide and inspiration for YOUR piece. Get the basic idea from it, some of the basic colors and study the lighting and cues for your work, but own the work as you make it. Do not feel beholden to the reference even though it is an accurate detailed reproduction of reality find your truth of that reality which you wish to portray.
2: Paint YOUR rough painting using the reference as a guide. Be loose first, concentrate on value masses and decide your own composition. Frame it differently, change the shape or line of a mountain, shoreline, tree line, add a building, remove a fence, move a tree, do what you want, you are the only Creator when it comes to your work. Make something you really like! I would suggest keeping it rough, with the most important details added if you want to have that as well. Make this consciously for the purpose of being your painting's foundation and guide, keep it loose in the areas of no consequence but detailed (to your liking) in the areas of interest, your goal is not to paint the scene twice so think of it as a stage in the process (an important one) rather than a finished work.
3-4: Add new step 4.5 Print a separate copy of your guide as a reference while you are painting over your first copy as your canvas. If you still wish to, block in as a paint by number exercise but I suggest once that is done, rework and finish your painting in the later stages in the same way you would have done so if you had not painted your block in by number. From then on just paint it using your reference, and of course because real paint is different adjust as necessary to get the look you want within the limitations of paint.
IMHO the end result will feel a bit more like YOUR painting that what you would produce using your original plan. Very interested to see how this turns out!
Cheers!
DO
Last edited by DarkOwnt; 06-19-2018 at 02:05 AM.
Senior Member
DO - Re: composition
It is important. I have an opinion about it which is just my rule of thumb -- which is to design more immediate reads as used in illustration and commercial work. You're leading the eye and you can use everything to create a hierarchy of information. Balance you can kind of see. I think any elements can be arranged, whether abstract or subjective. There are elements that are going to naturally pull the eye because they're interesting elements as when people are in the picture, where they're looking etc.
But consider that some of the main ways to pull attention to a spot in the canvas is that the eye naturally sees the area of most contrast. So you can usually control that with lighting and color contrast etc. It's an interesting topic, but there are some 'go to' formulas you will probably adopt as your own and do variations of them.
I've never been one who uses the more elaborate classical tricks where you have all these soldiers and one spear is pointing to a particular guy whose arm is pointing to another etc as a way to control the clutter of some vast historical scene. But I think looking into basic design principles should take you where you want to go. Simple, primitive shapes is often stronger. And forcing a composition that isn't necessarily in the real world landscape for example is not necessarily a bad thing. But it's all dependent on you and what you're interested in showing and how. Improving on nature and modifying to taste is the artist's birthright. Some people are stuck following photos slavishly and they like that. But if you're thinking in terms of composition, that says you want more control. Lead us around your images like a storyteller and think like a designer.
Last edited by D Akey; 06-19-2018 at 06:01 AM.
"Not a bit is wasted and the best is yet to come. . ." -- remembered from a dream
Senior Member
Sorry guys but I just don't have the time right now to reply. Both of you guys (and Chad too!) are such an inspiration to me and my painting work. Keep up the great thoughts. I love your post in the other thread DO! It's just I do not have the band-width right now to try and absorb it all and comment on it.
Here is my latest and I do not like it at all. But, the colors came out nicely in a few places. This was from a copyright free photo online. Enough said! Thanks again.
PS: This looks better if you click on the image.
(Removed Image...)
Last edited by HwyStar; 06-21-2018 at 07:51 AM. Reason: Copyright violation
Robert Hopkins
Senior Member
Hello Robert (is this your preference?)
Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for displaying your next piece. I agree that it has nice colors, but I do not hate it. I see potential, and a lot of it.
Have you tried to identify why you "hate it"? If you can identify what you don't like, I suggest that there is so much potential here that you should just simply fix those things!
A few things I've noticed (which might coincide with your perceptual misgivings). I know you did not ask for comments but having stated you "hated it" I hope the following can be useful.
1. It is hard to tell (for some of it) if the subject foliage are trees or bushes. The main tall masses (which I really like) evoke a sense of trees, whereas the shorter bunches in the left and in the middle right evoke a sense of bushiness due to the way the light modulates, the even height, and how far downward the light penetrates. Here, I am likely taking the main trees as a visual queue subliminally, and looking for a smaller chaotically similar pattern in those areas and seeing something different. The far right area seems to clearly have trees on a distant shore although it is angled upward quite a bit.
2. It is hard to tell if the shoreline is supposed to be far away or close. The size and detail of the trees/bushes hint at something far, but the shape and angle of the shoreline hint at something closer. Especially on the left where the shoreline is not horizontal or flat, combined with the foliage that looks like bushes, it feels somewhat close. There is also an angle upward at the very far right.
3. I love the reflection of the tallest two trees. It is not clear why or how the trees/bushes to the left of the main masses, create almost no reflection (the sky seems very well visible in the water as though the foliage were absent). Similarly on the far right. It also seems as if the wonderful roundish tree to the right of the tallest ones is reflecting more than its fair share: it is half the height of the main trees but shows a totality of reflection almost as big. Finally, the blinding bright patch in the sky (which is wonderful) would be nice to see reflected, in some way, perhaps in a dappled distribution.
So to be clear, I think this CAN and SHOULD be salvaged and made into a work YOU love, because it has SO much going for it already.
Cheers!
Last edited by DarkOwnt; 06-20-2018 at 04:00 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote