/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1918752
>just said "they're muddy" which is like saying "this sucks". It lacks info and therefore isn't an actual critique. He was just talking to talk.
idk man, if someone told me my painting was muddy, I'd kind of know where to look to fix it and ask for more information if I needed it. Anyway obviously you like it, but they're not appealing to me at all.
>>1918751
I'm kind of tired because it's late so I can't really explain myself, but I used lighting and value to try and describe depth and space. I didn't tough the second one becuase, I mean guess for what it was it's okay but I wasn't sure what I could do with it.

I added a directional light in the first one becuase it really should be there anyway, but it also adds depth to the windows, they don't just look like black squares in perspective.

In the third one I made it lighter in the distance, you will notices that this adds a much greater sense of depth than just having the lines recede.

In teh fourth one I used the same login in making the background lighter and the shelves out of focus, because they are unimportant to the composition and only distract in the thumbnail. it';s great that they are there but they shouldn't be so prominent. and I darkened the two girls to show that they are in the foreground. yes foreground objects can be light but this is a good way of establishing easily readable depth in the thumbnail phase.