Two studies on value! I'm planning to do about a dozen more of these (and through this also practice perspective when I get to houses and such), got motivated from listening to a professional artist's talk on youtube (ง •_•)ง And shoutout to Xybb for pointing out my value-weakness in a last post, thank you! (if you see this)
What I learned is to stick to the basic formula of dark, medium light--the dark values being concentrated in the closest area of land to the viewer. I might have struggled with that a bit, since the two photos I referenced from seem to have a lot of local values covering the floor, for instance.
it might be a bit too much to post 12 more of these here... oh heavens i don't know
Value studies #4 and #5
I'm not really satisfied with my results, but oh well ;-; I get impatient and my brain gets fried often when I try to do the details. Almost every study took has been taking more than a day to complete. But of course, I was taking longer because I sometimes get very distracted ::>_<::
Hey =) These value studies look like a lot of fun, so I took the liberty and tried improving it with what I noticed. Though, I do have to preface it with a disclaimer: I have never done a value study before :D.
General things I noticed: Your value studies seem a bit dark overall and have quite a similar valuerange from fore- to background. Usually, the value range gets very narrow (little contrast), the further away something is from the viewer. I feel like there's to little of that in your studies.
I tried to remove the contrast in the background a bit and added more in the foreground, also trying to layer fore-/mid-/ and background in terms of value used. Note sure if this is accurate to your reference, but I felt like it's needed for the painting to read better.
Mayor key points I'd focus on are:
-your lightest lights/ darkests darks in the foreground should be more intense than in the background
- seperate objects a bit better where they overlap. I think it's okay to exaggerate the reference to make it read better (for example by adding atmosphere where it makes sense)
I hope this is of some use.
Thank you Xybb for the critque! The latest picture was indeed darker, and I guess tried to emulate that too much without really thinking much about how to distribute the values. Perhaps the pics I have also might not be the best, since I get confused from the lighting and local values.
Now that I look back to it, the pic for value 5 also had more darkness to the foreground. Oops! Thank you for the tips, they were helpful and I'll keep them in mind!
I can't anymore 🥲 The trees kinda look like blobs but have been really feeling that mental strain ( ノ ゚ー゚)ノ I think I've been working on this painting alone for about 8 hours
I tried to pay more attention to making the midground and background of a similar, and lighter value. But for the reference, I found that light and local values kinda make the standard dark, medium, light value distribution a bit mixed. So I think I relied on more of the shadows to help me know that standard order of values. Hopefully it's evident that the darkest shadows are in foreground.
Which created a question: would shadows, or areas not affected by light, generally be a guide to how I should establish the "standard" values? This would be great to know if I were to create my own landscape. If anyone knows let me know! I'll prob search it up too later
value #6