/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3203401

It's not like this isn't a way to study light and colour; why not have fun while you're at it and pursue an artist that you admire?

>>3203390

If you feel that your painting is muddy, then try to translate that diagnosis into something tangible in your painting. Odds are, you're not referring to mud having been placed on your monitor.

In this case, I think you felt that the values you've employed are entirely too close together; there are also a number of issues that exacerbate this: The separation of light and shadow on the skin is only a difference of two tones; your lights are at 9(0% brightness) and your shadows at 7(0% brightness). The area that divides the light and shadow is not very distinct, thus the form is not emphasized. You've also utilized textures in those crucial areas, which further breaks up the separation.

And so, the solutions present themselves. You could use a wider range of values to model the face. You could take care to emphasize the forms with crisp, careful transitions from light to shadow, with all the parts in tow; Highlight, Light, Midtone, Core shadow, Shadow. You could keep textures out of those transition zones, to ensure that they read clearly.

And I understand that you may want this piece to feel washed out, bright, and breathy, but there are ways other ways to achieve this. What if you made the background of deep, rich colours that contrast how little colour she has? What if you made the background and her hair full of hard, sharp textures that were all very dark, so they were still unified, and kept her face smooth? You can achieve that feeling without disregarding the physics of light and colour; if you understand those laws, you'll know how to break them without having an unsatisfactory result.

Here's a quick paintover; whether or not it's helpful is another matter entirely, hahaha.