2018 Pen Paintings (Gallery)

[HwyStar]

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!

[NickBussy]

Nice texture, looks great framed up.

[DarkOwnt]

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!

For now I'm working on learning about composition, so nothing new.

I'm starting to see that the mere fact that I feel like painting a thing, or I think something will look good, is not sufficient (for me anyway) to produce a good piece. As an extreme example, I could set my smart phone to take a random picture 5 seconds after I take it out of my pocket no matter where I am, how I am holding it, or which direction it is pointed in. I could then set as my goal photographic reproduction through pixel by pixel translation of RGB colors (or something equivalent). The results would look real, but would not be Art or any form of my expression.. nothing about how I see the world and what I see or feel is important would be in it.... just the result of a random pointless mechanical process. Obviously an effective and expressive work requires thought and planning. What do I want to paint? Why do want to paint THAT instead of THIS. HOW do I want to paint it? Why should it look like THAT or feel like THIS? What is its balance, symmetry, where does the viewers eye go, what do I want to be the center of interest, is the work confusing to the eye, does it distract from what is important or mentally block the viewer from engagement, how can I engage the viewer, keep them in the picture frame and convey what I want to etc etc?

So I've come to the conclusion to do anything good (rather than simply as an exercise to hone skill) I will need to know about the principles of composition and how they can be used to plan and execute a visually effective piece.

So, nothing new for now. BUT I will be reworking an old juicy apple painting I did, trying to apply what I am learning about composition. Hopefully the exercise will reveal some things about what can make a good painting and what can make it better. I'll post a new thread for people to follow the process and submit comments.


Cheers
DO

[DarkOwnt]

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?

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

[D Akey]

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.

[HwyStar]

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...)

[DarkOwnt]

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!

[HwyStar]

Yes, you can call me Robert. Just don't call me late to dinner!

I'm at my desk at work and my god, by clicking on the image to make it full-screen mode; on my windows computer (1080p) the canvas texture looks horrid! I will consider dropping the jpeg exports from 84% down to maybe 70% when I post here.

My favorite paintings that I have created seemed to have just painted themselves. And, the ones I don't like are just "plain old work". This painting was work to create.

1. I agree with your assessment of the trees. I think I am having trouble with the contrast between the sky and the water, the distance and usage of detail, and painting this in digital and still giving it a look of a traditional painting.

2. The image that posted up here to the forum does not show a thin light line that separates the water and the shore. My image at home has this line. This may explain why it is hard for you to understand the perception of distance.

3. Yes, the water reflections... I don't think I am ready for water landscapes quite yet. I have a picture in my head how I want water to look in my paintings but no idea yet on how I want to make those brush strokes. I am not so sure that ArtRage can make this kind of brush stroke. Kind of a very slight "u" brush stroke. Not a rounded, flat oil brush. Without getting those brush strokes I am having troubles getting past the way all of the water looks.

I think I just want this painting to remain as a UFO. Un-Finished-Object. Some paintings are better left to just go away!

I am excited to continue reading about your compositional analysis! Carry on Mate!

[DarkOwnt]

Robert... so sorry you have decided to abandon this one. I was looking forward to seeing the vision you originally intended. It already is quite striking.

I would still be interested if you ever decided to revive it!

PS: Could you provide a link to the original "copyright free" photo online? I'm curious!

Cheers!

[HwyStar]

The site I am using is PaintMyPhoto (https://pmp-art.com/). I browsed for a while to find the image I used (753 pages returned! "tree landscape sunset"). They have a lot of good reference material to use. I think the image is on my computer at home. I will put it up here later on today.