/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2597021

That's the start of it, but it's still surface. That's the "how", now figure out the "why". The "how" will let you do it just as he did without regard to suitability or appropriateness, the "why" will let you understand why he did it that way so that you can approach it however you want, with whatever you want.

The "how" and the "why" together would be this; you look at a reference shot and by squinting discern the effect of certain foliage. To imply this effect, you start with a texture brush proper to that foliage to lend some noise which feels like crossing ferns, or tangled dried branches, or leaves upon the ground.

Then, you think about how important this section is in the piece - will it fall under viewer scrutiny, or be in their periphery? If it's the section I posted, when compared to the full piece, it's actually somewhat negligible - so why would we add highlights to draw the eye? If that area falls under any extra scrutiny it'd probably fall apart, so it probably would not be to draw the eye. Instead, we would be adding just enough information with the little highlit portions and leave it at that.

Most importantly, if you're tired and you know you're tired, then rest. Don't be rough on yourself. Hard work ethic means nothing if it'd take you 4 hours to learn something tired as opposed to an hour well rested. Look at this again tomorrow with fresh eyes. For when that time comes, here's another painting with the exact same principles, done in a completely different manner. In this, a section of foliage is the actual focal point, so take that into account as well.